How has First National Bank (FNB) used digital and social media to engage with its customers?
What benefits does FNB obtain from investing in a social media strategy?
What lessons can FNB learn about developing and implementing a social media strategy?
Identify important factors for an organisation
to consider when using social media to communicate with customers and improve their experience. Use 3-5 secondary sources to support your analysis.
MNG81001 Session 3 2017 MARKING RUBRIC: ASSESSMENT 3 MNG81001 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION Assessment 3 ANALYSIS (CASE STUDY) Document design Memo format Due Date Friday 5th January 2018 9.00am (QLD time) Length 1000 words (+/- 10%) Weight 25% The purpose of Assessment 3 is to understand the concept of ‘analysis’ and how to learn to analyse information efficiently and effectively. According to Rosenwaser and Stephen (2009, p. 4), analysis is: More than just a set of skills, analysis is a frame of mind, an attitude toward experience. It is a form of detective work that typically pursues something puzzling, something you are seeking to understand rather than something you are already sure you have the answers to. Analysis finds questions where there seemed not to be any, and it makes connections that might not have been evident at first. Assessment Task Companies around the globe are embracing and adapting social media for many different reasons, including: customer service, marketing, internal communications, public relations, and corporate social responsibility. It is now a reality that social media is changing the way stakeholders and companies communicate daily, providing opportunities for collaboration, participation, interactivity, and engagement. Your task is to analyse a business case study that chronicles the management of a social media strategy by First National Bank (FNB), one of South Africa’s ‘Big Four’ banks. A business case study ‘is a description of an actual situation, commonly involving a decision, a challenge, an opportunity, a problem or an issue faced by a person (or persons) in an organization’ (Erskine, J.A. and Leenders, M.R., Learning with Cases, © 1997, Richard Ivey School of Business). Cases contain relevant data about the issue available to the key person in the case, plus background information about the organisation. Please follow these guidelines to complete the assessment: 1. Carefully read the Ivey Business School case: ‘Banking on Social Media’. Note: you will need to go onto the Ivey Business School website https://www.iveycases.com/ and purchase a copy of this case (Product Number: 9B14A070) (approximately $AUD5.00). 2. Read the case several times and answer the following questions in your analysis: · How has First National Bank (FNB) used digital and social media to engage with its customers? · What benefits does FNB obtain from investing in a social media strategy? · What lessons can FNB learn about developing and implementing a social media strategy? · Identify important factors for an organisation to consider when using social media to communicate with customers and improve their experience. Use 3-5 secondary sources to support your analysis. 3. You are encouraged to write a first draft of this memo at least one week prior to the due date to ensure adequate time for revision. Please be aware that the writing quality and appropriate referencing will be marked as well as the content. 4. Submit Assessment 3 to Turnitin via the Blackboard site no later than the due date: Monday 9th October, 9.00AM (QLD time). 5. Refer to the Marking Guide located under on the Blackboard. The weighting for Assessment 3 is (25%). PRIOS/CDT brief for Assessment 3: a. Purpose: Analyse the management of a social media strategy. b. Reader: Lana Strydon, Head Digital Marketing and Media, FNB. c. Information: Based on primary and secondary sources. d. Organisation: Direct order approach. e. Style: Formal. Be sure to proofread carefully to ensure that there are no sentence-level errors such as spelling mistakes, wrong word choice, incorrect punctuation, etc. f. Channel choice: written document. g. Document design: memo format. h. Length: 1000 words. Please note: 1. All applications for Special Consideration need to be submitted before the due date of the assessment item. For more information see http://scu.edu.au/students/index.php/30 and Rule 3 - Coursework Awards - Student Assessment and Examinations http://policies.scu.edu.au/view.current.php?id=0014 Computer failure will not be accepted as a reason for missing an assessment deadline: you are strongly advised to backup all of your work, for example on a USB flash drive, to ensure that you are still able to submit to a deadline in the event of a computer related failure. 2. In cases where there are no accepted mitigating circumstances as determined through Special Consideration procedures, late submission of assessment tasks will lead automatically to the imposition of a penalty. Penalties will be applied for late submissions as soon as the deadline is reached. 3. Students are reminded of the extremely serious view the University takes with regard to plagiarism and are strongly advised to read the university’s policies on academic integrity and the penalties associated with academic misconduct (see: https://policies.scu.edu.au/ view.current.php?id=00142, as well as information in the UIG). Marking criteria/weighting Evaluation criteria Task Weighting 1.Purpose & Audience Understanding and addressing the question Has the student understood the task and covered the key points? Does the response adequately address the topic and task? Does this document take into account the needs of the audience? Does this document provide adequate information for the reader? Does the writer thoroughly address any potential questions from the reader? 40% 2. Structure & Organisation Thesis/argument, introduction, conclusion, paragraphs. Using referencing in your writing (paraphrasing, synthesising and quotations). Is there a clear structure to the response? Does the introduction, body and conclusion contain all the identifying features ? Do the paragraphs contain one main idea that is explored using relevant evidence? 30% 3.Research & Language Integrating evidence (paraphrasing, synthesising and quotations) Referencing – in-text (citing) and reference list. Sentences – spelling, punctuation, grammar. Is there evidence of research? Is it properly referenced? Are source materials properly integrated and referenced in-text? Is there a range of vocabulary? Are sentences grammatically correct? Are sentences accurate and complete? Has a spell check been used? Is spelling accurate? 30% Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction 0 - 49 50 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85 - 100<12.5 12.5 – 15.5 16 – 18 18.5 – 20.5 21+ multiple parts of the assignment are missing or incomplete. student fails to answer the question. essential elements are imprecise or absent. work at a level that would be considered basic. key elements are presented but could be further developed and given ore depth. most aspects included in a final, well-developed form. the assignment contains all required elements and is of the highest order. 1 mng81001 session 3 2017 assessment 3 1. purpose and audience (40%) 2. structure and organisation (30%) 3. research and language use (30%) high distinction (34 – 40) high distinction (25.5 – 30) distinction 22.5 – 25) all aspects of the assessment are comprehensively and appropriately explored, supported and covered. the writer’s position and/or purpose is clear and fully developed throughout the assessment. all ideas are relevant and appropriate for the audience. reference to required number of relevant sources. the specified word length is met (1000 words +/– 10%). writing communicates meaning clearly and achieves purpose of the task. the introduction is solid and thorough and includes all identifying features. strong and relevant thesis statement with controlling idea(s) linked to topic sentences. conclusion clearly relates back to the title, thesis statement and main points. presents a well-defined summary of the whole paper. well-defined argument. information and ideas are logically organised and easily followed. cohesion between sentences and paragraphs is highly effective, and all internal headings are used effectively and sufficiently. paragraphing is used appropriately and skillfully. format enhances readability of the paper. paraphrases and synthesises information in own words; cites the originating author(s) and provides the corresponding reference. quotes (where appropriate) used sparingly and cited correctly. information is correctly referenced following the scu harvard style for both in-text and end-of-text referencing. a wide range of vocabulary is used accurately and appropriately (for audience); spelling is correct. a wide range of grammatical structures are used accurately and appropriately throughout with no errors (incl. punctuation errors. reference to required number of three (3) to five (5) relevant sources. distinction (30 – 33.5) distinction (22.5 – 25) distinction (22.5 – 25) all aspects of the assessment are addressed and supported sufficiently and appropriately. the writer’s position and/or purpose is clear and well-developed. the specified word length is met (1000 words +/– 10%). information and ideas are relevant and appropriate for the audience (minor lapses may occur). writing communicates meaning to a satisfactory level and achieves purpose of the task. the introduction is clear and appropriate and includes all identifying features. appropriate and relevant thesis statement with controlling idea(s) linked to topic sentences. conclusion clearly relates back to the title, thesis statement and main points. presents a good summary of the whole paper. the organisation of information and ideas is logical (only minor lapses/loss of coherence occur). cohesion between sentences and paragraphs is often very effective, and internal headings are often effective and sufficient. paragraphing is appropriate. each paragraph has one clear main idea (lapses are rare). paraphrases and synthesises information in own words; cites the originating author(s) and provides the corresponding reference. quotes (where appropriate) used sparingly and cited correctly in-text and end-of-text referencing is mostly accurate (some minor inconsistencies/inaccuracies) a range of vocabulary is used accurately and appropriately (for audience); minor spelling errors. a range of grammatical structures are appropriately used; some minor errors, (incl. punctuation errors). reference to required number of three (3) to five (5) relevant sources. credit (26 – 29) credit (19.5 – 22) credit (19.5 – 22) nearly all aspects of the assessment are addressed with appropriate support (although more support may be needed in some areas). the writer’s position and/or purpose are generally developed and clear. the specified word length is met (1000 words +/– 10%). most information and ideas are extended sufficiently, but there may be a minor lack of clarity or focus and/or relevance in some supporting ideas/material. writing generally communicates effectively but logic and meaning not always clear. the introduction is adequate; outlines identifying features but greater clarity required. the thesis statement makes an overly broad claim and is somewhat ambiguous in meaning. conclusion addresses most main areas adequately. information and ideas are generally organised logically (lapses/loss of coherence may occur). cohesion between sentences and paragraphs is helpful (although errors, repetitive use, or underuse occur), and some internal headings are well-managed. paragraphing is generally effective and appropriate but may not always be logical, and/or the main idea of the paragraph may not always be clear. most attempts at paraphrasing and synthesising are sufficient, accurate, and appropriate; cites the originating author(s) and provides the corresponding reference. quotes (where 12.5="" –="" 15.5="" 16="" –="" 18="" 18.5="" –="" 20.5="" 21+="" multiple="" parts="" of="" the="" assignment="" are="" missing="" or="" incomplete.="" student="" fails="" to="" answer="" the="" question.="" essential="" elements="" are="" imprecise="" or="" absent.="" work="" at="" a="" level="" that="" would="" be="" considered="" basic.="" key="" elements="" are="" presented="" but="" could="" be="" further="" developed="" and="" given="" ore="" depth.="" most="" aspects="" included="" in="" a="" final,="" well-developed="" form.="" the="" assignment="" contains="" all="" required="" elements="" and="" is="" of="" the="" highest="" order.="" 1="" mng81001="" session="" 3="" 2017="" assessment="" 3="" 1.="" purpose="" and="" audience="" (40%)="" 2.="" structure="" and="" organisation="" (30%)="" 3.="" research="" and="" language="" use="" (30%)="" high="" distinction="" (34="" –="" 40)="" high="" distinction="" (25.5="" –="" 30)="" distinction="" 22.5="" –="" 25)="" all="" aspects="" of="" the="" assessment="" are="" comprehensively="" and="" appropriately="" explored,="" supported="" and="" covered.="" the="" writer’s="" position="" and/or="" purpose="" is="" clear="" and="" fully="" developed="" throughout="" the="" assessment.="" all="" ideas="" are="" relevant="" and="" appropriate="" for="" the="" audience.="" reference="" to="" required="" number="" of="" relevant="" sources.="" the="" specified="" word="" length="" is="" met="" (1000="" words="" +/–="" 10%).="" writing="" communicates="" meaning="" clearly="" and="" achieves="" purpose="" of="" the="" task.="" the="" introduction="" is="" solid="" and="" thorough="" and="" includes="" all="" identifying="" features.="" strong="" and="" relevant="" thesis="" statement="" with="" controlling="" idea(s)="" linked="" to="" topic="" sentences.="" conclusion="" clearly="" relates="" back="" to="" the="" title,="" thesis="" statement="" and="" main="" points.="" presents="" a="" well-defined="" summary="" of="" the="" whole="" paper.="" well-defined="" argument.="" information="" and="" ideas="" are="" logically="" organised="" and="" easily="" followed.="" cohesion="" between="" sentences="" and="" paragraphs="" is="" highly="" effective,="" and="" all="" internal="" headings="" are="" used="" effectively="" and="" sufficiently.="" paragraphing="" is="" used="" appropriately="" and="" skillfully.="" format="" enhances="" readability="" of="" the="" paper.="" paraphrases="" and="" synthesises="" information="" in="" own="" words;="" cites="" the="" originating="" author(s)="" and="" provides="" the="" corresponding="" reference.="" quotes="" (where="" appropriate)="" used="" sparingly="" and="" cited="" correctly.="" information="" is="" correctly="" referenced="" following="" the="" scu="" harvard="" style="" for="" both="" in-text="" and="" end-of-text="" referencing.="" a="" wide="" range="" of="" vocabulary="" is="" used="" accurately="" and="" appropriately="" (for="" audience);="" spelling="" is="" correct.="" a="" wide="" range="" of="" grammatical="" structures="" are="" used="" accurately="" and="" appropriately="" throughout="" with="" no="" errors="" (incl.="" punctuation="" errors.="" reference="" to="" required="" number="" of="" three="" (3)="" to="" five="" (5)="" relevant="" sources.="" distinction="" (30="" –="" 33.5)="" distinction="" (22.5="" –="" 25)="" distinction="" (22.5="" –="" 25)="" all="" aspects="" of="" the="" assessment="" are="" addressed="" and="" supported="" sufficiently="" and="" appropriately.="" the="" writer’s="" position="" and/or="" purpose="" is="" clear="" and="" well-developed.="" the="" specified="" word="" length="" is="" met="" (1000="" words="" +/–="" 10%).="" information="" and="" ideas="" are="" relevant="" and="" appropriate="" for="" the="" audience="" (minor="" lapses="" may="" occur).="" writing="" communicates="" meaning="" to="" a="" satisfactory="" level="" and="" achieves="" purpose="" of="" the="" task.="" the="" introduction="" is="" clear="" and="" appropriate="" and="" includes="" all="" identifying="" features.="" appropriate="" and="" relevant="" thesis="" statement="" with="" controlling="" idea(s)="" linked="" to="" topic="" sentences.="" conclusion="" clearly="" relates="" back="" to="" the="" title,="" thesis="" statement="" and="" main="" points.="" presents="" a="" good="" summary="" of="" the="" whole="" paper.="" the="" organisation="" of="" information="" and="" ideas="" is="" logical="" (only="" minor="" lapses/loss="" of="" coherence="" occur).="" cohesion="" between="" sentences="" and="" paragraphs="" is="" often="" very="" effective,="" and="" internal="" headings="" are="" often="" effective="" and="" sufficient.="" paragraphing="" is="" appropriate.="" each="" paragraph="" has="" one="" clear="" main="" idea="" (lapses="" are="" rare).="" paraphrases="" and="" synthesises="" information="" in="" own="" words;="" cites="" the="" originating="" author(s)="" and="" provides="" the="" corresponding="" reference.="" quotes="" (where="" appropriate)="" used="" sparingly="" and="" cited="" correctly="" in-text="" and="" end-of-text="" referencing="" is="" mostly="" accurate="" (some="" minor="" inconsistencies/inaccuracies)="" a="" range="" of="" vocabulary="" is="" used="" accurately="" and="" appropriately="" (for="" audience);="" minor="" spelling="" errors.="" a="" range="" of="" grammatical="" structures="" are="" appropriately="" used;="" some="" minor="" errors,="" (incl.="" punctuation="" errors).="" reference="" to="" required="" number="" of="" three="" (3)="" to="" five="" (5)="" relevant="" sources.="" credit="" (26="" –="" 29)="" credit="" (19.5="" –="" 22)="" credit="" (19.5="" –="" 22)="" nearly="" all="" aspects="" of="" the="" assessment="" are="" addressed="" with="" appropriate="" support="" (although="" more="" support="" may="" be="" needed="" in="" some="" areas).="" the="" writer’s="" position="" and/or="" purpose="" are="" generally="" developed="" and="" clear.="" the="" specified="" word="" length="" is="" met="" (1000="" words="" +/–="" 10%).="" most="" information="" and="" ideas="" are="" extended="" sufficiently,="" but="" there="" may="" be="" a="" minor="" lack="" of="" clarity="" or="" focus="" and/or="" relevance="" in="" some="" supporting="" ideas/material.="" writing="" generally="" communicates="" effectively="" but="" logic="" and="" meaning="" not="" always="" clear.="" the="" introduction="" is="" adequate;="" outlines="" identifying="" features="" but="" greater="" clarity="" required.="" the="" thesis="" statement="" makes="" an="" overly="" broad="" claim="" and="" is="" somewhat="" ambiguous="" in="" meaning.="" conclusion="" addresses="" most="" main="" areas="" adequately.="" information="" and="" ideas="" are="" generally="" organised="" logically="" (lapses/loss="" of="" coherence="" may="" occur).="" cohesion="" between="" sentences="" and="" paragraphs="" is="" helpful="" (although="" errors,="" repetitive="" use,="" or="" underuse="" occur),="" and="" some="" internal="" headings="" are="" well-managed.="" paragraphing="" is="" generally="" effective="" and="" appropriate="" but="" may="" not="" always="" be="" logical,="" and/or="" the="" main="" idea="" of="" the="" paragraph="" may="" not="" always="" be="" clear.="" most="" attempts="" at="" paraphrasing="" and="" synthesising="" are="" sufficient,="" accurate,="" and="" appropriate;="" cites="" the="" originating="" author(s)="" and="" provides="" the="" corresponding="" reference.="" quotes="">