Brand Management MKT 372 Prof.

Susan Broniarczyk Spring 2006 Course Times/Places
Class Meetings: Course Unique #: Tuesday and Thursday 2:00 – 3:30 CBA 4.348 04590

Office Hours: Tuesday, Thursday 3:30 – 4:30 and by appointment Office: CBA 7.226 Phone: 471-5423 E-mail: susan.broniarczyk@mccombs.utexas.edu Website: UT Direct Blackboard link T.A.: Fernanda Sacasa T.A. E-mail: Fernanda.Sacasa@mba06.mccombs.utexas.edu T.A. Office Hours: By appointment

Required Readings
Readings Packet: UT Co-Op Blackboard Readings: Available under “Documents”

Optional Reading
Kevin Lane Keller, Strategic Brand Management, Prentice-Hall, 2003, 2ed.

Course Objectives
More and more firms of all types have come to the realization that one of the most valuable assets they have is the brand names associated with their products or services. Despite this recognition, very little attention has been paid to the subject in management education. To address this oversight, Brand Management is an advanced elective that addresses important branding decisions faced by an organization. Its basic objectives are: 1) to increase understanding of the important issues in planning and evaluating brand strategies; 2) to provide the appropriate theories, models, and other tools to make better branding decisions; and 3) to provide a forum for students to apply these principles. Specifically, we will cover: • building customers’ brand knowledge • generating brand identities and value propositions • using the marketing mix to effectively deliver the brand to the marketplace • measuring brand equity • creating a comprehensive and effective brand architecture • managing brands over time

Course Philosophy
My basic teaching philosophy for this course is to blend the theory and practice of product and brand management in a comfortable, supportive classroom environment that promotes active learning. A good theory is invaluable because it structures problems and suggests possible solutions. My view is that the most critically important consideration in branding is understanding the customer; hence many theories covered will be from a consumer behavior perspective. Branding is both an art and a science. Thus, few branding situations have a definitive, unqualified answer as to the “best” marketing programs. Yet, my belief is that by providing you with relevant and comprehensive theories, and all the accompanying ideas, concepts, mechanisms, and models that go along with that, you can make more informed decisions that will have a greater probability of success. The course readings and activities are designed to help blend theory and practice. The readings will cover the basic concepts and theoretical frameworks as well as provide current thinking on key topics. Cases will allow us to apply these theories to real marketing problems.

Course Requirements and Evaluations
Component Individual: ♦ Case Analyses ♦ Exam 1 ♦ Exam 2 ♦ Course Participation Team: ♦ Brand Audit Project Total Possible: Possible Points 60 points (15%) 100 points (25%) 100 points (25%) 40 points (10%)

100 points (25%) 400 points

The grading scale is A = 90% and above, B = 80-89%, C = 70-79%, D = 60-69%, and F = less than 60%.

Case Analyses (15% of total grade)
A two-page recommendation for each case analysis is due at the beginning of class. Case analyses are due for Land Rover, H-E-B Own Brands, and Procter & Gamble (A). Each case is worth 30 points. Your top 2 out of 3 cases will be applied towards your final

grade. The first page is a single-spaced (1” margins, 12-point type) written case recommendation. The second page is an appendix page of supporting evidence and analyses. Case analyses are an individual assignment and should be worked on independently (i.e., no discussion with a classmate). See Appendix A for case analysis decisions and class discussion questions. A written case recommendation is a formal proposal submitted to management. When writing a case analysis consider the following points: 1) Your recommendation needs to be very tightly argued. You may use “bullet” point form for part of your argument. However, be careful not to be too cryptic. 2) Do not simply restate data from the case. The CEO is already familiar with the business! 3) On the other hand, take every opportunity to support your arguments with case data. Ask yourself, “Is there any objection the boss could raise that I have not already overcome?” Then do your best to overcome it. 4) Provide supporting evidence from analysis of case data (include in appendix) Don’t just “eyeball” the exhibits to see whether sales have increased, be prepared to “crunch the numbers” and say by how much.

Exam 1 (25% of total grade)
The objective of Exam 1 is to summarize your learning in the course and allow you to demonstrate your ability to independently apply the frameworks and constructs we’ve discussed to specific problems. The in-class exam on March 2 will be a combination of multiple choice and short answer questions applying frameworks and constructs to realworld brand situations.

Exam 2 (25% of total grade)
The objective of Exam 2 is to summarize your learning in the course and allow you to demonstrate your ability to independently apply the frameworks and constructs we’ve discussed to specific problems. Exam 2 will occur on April 20.

Course Participation (10% of total grade)
Course participation does not just mean "the amount of time you talk in class" - it means participation in the class as a whole and the quality of that participation. Thus, there are actually many ways to improve your participation grade: In-Class Participation. You should be thoroughly prepared to discuss the readings and cases for each class session. Each day when class begins, several students may be selected at random to lead discussion of readings.

Class participation is evaluated on the quality of your participation and its contribution to improving the learning experience of the class. Note that quality is not necessarily a function of quantity. Quality is assessed by preparation, argument strength (wellsupported points), and the extent to which the entire class benefited from your comments. Many people are intimidated by the "obligation" of speaking up in class. Don't be. Your anxiety will be reduced only through practice! Getting comfortable with public speaking will give you a HUGE career advantage. Here's the secret to cutting your stress level - BE PREPARED. Your class participation grade is weighted heavily in favor of quality over quantity. Bug me with things you don't understand. Contact me for clarification on confusing topics. Not only will this let me know of your sincere interest in the course, but it will actually increase your chances of a good grade on the written work. Current Events. Bring in a current event (usually an article from a newspaper or magazine, or sometimes an ad, promotional material, or actual new product). It should be relevant to the topic we are discussing in class. State why you found it interesting and how it is relevant. Reading the marketing and advertising columns of the newspapers and business press can provide great opportunities for class participation. Attendance. Attendance is essential and expected. Obviously, you cannot participate if you do not attend class. You are granted two unexcused absences without penalty.

Brand Audit (25% of total grade)
Students will self-select a team consisting of 5 members for the brand audit project. The goal of the brand audit is to have students conduct an in-depth examination of a major brand of their choosing and suggest ways to improve and leverage that brand equity. Select a brand undergoing a challenge regarding its brand architecture, brand portfolio, brand extension, or brand revitalization. Every team must study a different brand. A good source of possible brands is Interbrand list (“Best Global Brands,” March 21 readings). Brand audits are made up of brand inventories (comprehensive summaries of a firm’s marketing and branding program) and brand exploratories (in-depth consumer profiles). To assess sources of brand equity, it is necessary to profile consumer's brand knowledge structures. A variety of sources of information can be used to assemble this profile. Students are encouraged to consult trade magazines and business publications, and consult with company sources. From this research, you should formulate your brand’s customer-based brand equity pyramid. You are then expected to conduct your own survey as part of the exploratory research. The purpose of this research is to obtain supporting evidence for key aspects of your brand’s customer-based brand equity pyramid and to obtain test market research regarding your recommendations. Students

will critically analyze current marketing programs and make suggestions for new marketing programs. See Appendix B for details on Brand Audit Project & Brand Audit Worksheets. All brand audit grades will be adjusted based on peer evaluation.

Conduct
Electronics Policy. Laptops, PDAs, and cellphones are not allowed to be in use during class. This policy facilitates class engagement and participation. Also, all cell phones must be turned off. If your cell phone rings during class, you will be asked to leave the classroom. Policy on Scholastic Dishonesty: The McCombs School of Business has no tolerance for acts of scholastic dishonesty. Everyone should purchase their own copy of course packet at UT Co-Op to avoid any improprieties and copyright infringement. The responsibilities of both students and faculty with regard to scholastic dishonesty are described in detail in the Policy Statement on Scholastic Dishonesty for the McCombs School of Business.
By teaching this course, I have agreed to observe all of the faculty responsibilities described in that document. By enrolling in this class, you have agreed to observe all of the student responsibilities described in that document. If the application of that Policy Statement to this class and its assignments is unclear in any way, it is your responsibility to ask me for clarification. Policy on Scholastic Dishonesty: Students who violate University rules on scholastic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary penalties, including the possibility of failure in the course an/or dismissal from the University. Since dishonesty harms the individual, all students, and the integrity of the University, policies on scholastic dishonesty will be strictly enforced. You should refer to the Student Judicial Services website at http:/deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sjs or the General Information Catalog to access the official University policies and procedures on scholastic dishonesty as well as further elaboration on what constitutes scholastic dishonesty.

Re-grading. Requests to have a grade reconsidered should be submitted in writing. If you would like to submit a request, or if you would just like to discuss your grade in general, wait at least 48 hours after an assignment is returned to you. This is to prevent an emotional type of interaction, and replace it with a rational, objective discussion of the merits of the case. No re-grading will be considered more than 10 days after the assignment is returned to you, unless it is a matter of a math error, which will always be cheerfully corrected. Class Web Sites and Student Privacy. A useful feature in Blackboard is a class e-mail roster that is available to both the instructor and the students in a class. While this electronic class roster can facilitate collaboration it also raises some privacy concerns. Below is the University’s policy on this matter:
Password-protected class sites will be available for all accredited courses taught at The University. Syllabi, handouts, assignments and other resources are types of information that may be

available within these sites. Site activities could include exchanging e-mail, engaging in class discussions and chats, and exchanging files. In addition, class e-mail rosters will be a component of the sites. Students who do not want their names included in these electronic class rosters must restrict their directory information in the Office of the Registrar, Main Building, Room 1. For information on restricting directory information see: http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/gi04-05/app/appc09.html.

Special Needs. The University of Texas at Austin provides upon request appropriate academic accommodations for qualified students with disabilities. For more information, contact the Office of the Dean of Students at 471-6259, 471-4641 TTY.

MKT 372 Brand Management Spring 2006 Course Readings Packet Prof. Broniarczyk
Jan. 17 T Jan. 19 Th Intro Customer-Based Brand Equity “Customer Based Brand Equity” By Kevin Lane Keller, Chapter 2 in Strategic Brand Management, 2ed., Prentice Hall, pp. 58-117. “What High-Tech Managers Need to Know About Brands” By Scott Ward, Larry Light, and Jonathan Goldstine, Harvard Business Review, July 1999, July-August 1999, pp. 85-95. (Available on Blackboard) Jan.24 T Brand Knowledge & Brand Relationships “There’s a Sucker Born in Every Medial Prefrontal Cortex” By Clive Thomspon, New York Times, October 26, 2003. “Brand Zealots: Realizing the Full Value of Emotional Loyalty” By Rozanski, Horacio D., Baum, Allen C and Wolfsen, Bradley T., Fourth Quarter 1999, Strategy + Business (reprint No. 99407) Case: Introducing New Coke (Harvard Business School 9-500-067) ***Submit Resume *** Optional: “Neural Correlates of Behavioral Preference for Culturally Familiar Drinks,” Neuron, Vol. 44, 379-387, October 14, 2004 (Available on Blackboard) Jan. 26 Th Positioning “Three Questions You Need to Ask About Your Brand ” By Kevin Lane Keller, Brian Sternthal, and Alice Tybout, Harvard Business Review, Sept. 2002, pp. 80-86. (Available on Blackboard)

Jan. 31 1 T

Positioning

Case: Land Rover North America (Harvard Business School 5-597-043) ***CASE ANALYSIS DUE***
Feb.2 Th Brand Names

“Companies Get Inventive When Making Names for Themselves” By Deborah Lohse, Austin American Statesman, Dec. 7, 2000 “New ABCs of Branding” By Sharon Begley, Wall Street Journal, B1, August 26, 2002. “Trademark Dilution and the Practice of Marketing” By Robert Peterson, Karen H. Smith, and Philip C. Zerrillo, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Volume 27, No. 2, pp. 255-268. Feb.7 T Brand Name & Brand Audit Overview Guest Speaker: Leon Chen, Co-Founder of Tiff’s Treats

Feb.9 Th

Brand Logos

“Is Your Brand at Risk” By Regina Fazio Maruca, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec. 1999, pp.22-25. (Available on Blackboard) “Marketers Ask: Hues on First?” By Arundhati Parmar, Marketing News, Feb. 15, 2004, 8-10 Guest Speaker: Karen Landolt, J.D., Pre-Law & BHP Career Advisor

Feb. 14 T

Private Label Brands “Brands Versus Private Labels: Fighting to Win” By John A. Quelch and David Harding, Harvard Business Review, JanFeb. 1996, pp.99-109. (Available on Blackboard) “Brand Killers” By Matthew Boyle, Fortune, August 11, 2003, v148, p.88

Best Buy Initiates A Battle of the Brands” By John Spooner, CNet News, October 4, 2004 (Available on Blackboard) ***Brand Audit Worksheet #1 Due*** Feb. 16 Th Pricing “Pay the same, get less as package volume falls” By Theresa Howard, USA Today, March 2003, 3B “Latte Letdown: Starbucks Set to Raise Prices” By Steven Gray and Amy Merrick, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 4, 2004, B1 “Coach’s Split Personality” By Diane Brady, Business Week, November 7, 2005, pp60-62

Feb. 21 T

Private Label & Pricing “Texas Grocer HEB Thrives By Catering to Locals” By Susan Warren, Wall Street Journal, December 1, 2004, B1 Case: HEB Own Brands (Harvard Business School 9-502-053) ***CASE ANALYSIS DUE***

Feb. 23 Th

Advertising & Promotion “Brand Confusion” By Kevin J. Clancy and Jack Trout, Harvard Business Review (Available on Blackboard) “How TV Advertising Works: An Industry Response” By Dwight R. Riskey, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, May 1997, pp.292-293. (Available on Blackboard) “Consumer Goods Firms Duel for Shelf Space,” By Deborah Ball, Wall Street Journal, October 22, 2004, B2 “In Shift, Marketers Beef Up Ad Spending Inside Stores” By Emily Nelson & Sarah Ellison, Wall Street Journal, September 21, 2005, A1

Feb. 28 T

Review

March 2 Th Exam 1 March 7 T Buzz Marketing “The Buzz on Buzz” Harvard Business Review, Nov. 2000 (Available on Blackboard) “The Vanishing Mass Market” By Anthony Bianco, Business Week, July 12, 2004, 61-68. “Leader of the Packs” Business Week, October 31, 2005, 56-58. “Getting Buzz Marketers to Fess Up” By Suzanne Vranica, Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2005, B9 March 9 Th Questionnaire Design & Group Time ***Brand Audit Worksheet #2 Due*** SPRING BREAK March 21 T Measurement of Brand Equity “Global Brands” Business Week, August 1, 2005, pp. 86-89. “Global Brand Scorecard: The 100 Top Brands” Business Week, August 1, 2005, pp. 90-94. “Putting a Firm Figure on Brands” By Jonathan Knowles, Professional Investor, June 2002, pp.13-17. “Breakaway Brands” By Al Ehrbar, Fortune, October 31, 2005, 153-170. March 23 Th Measurement of Brand Equity

Case: Habitat for Humanity International: Brand Valuation (Harvard Business School 9-503-101)

March 28 T Branding Architecture “Brand Relationship Spectrum” By David Aaker and Erich Joachimsthaler, California Management Review, Vol. 42, No. 4, Summer 2000, 8-23. (Available on Blackboard) “Ranking Corporate Reputations” By Ronald Alsop, Wall Street Journal, December 6, 2005, B1 “Corporate Reputation Survey Methodology” Wall Street Journal, December 6, 2005 “SBC’s Embrace of AT&T Brand Brings History – and Baggage” By Dionne Searcey & Brian Steinberg, Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2005, B1 ***Brand Audit Worksheet #3 Due*** March 30 Th Brand Extensions & Brand Portfolio “Customer-Centered Brand Management” By Roland Rust, Valerie Zeithaml, and Katherine Lemon, Harvard Business Review, September 2004. (Available on Blackboard) “Retailers’ Appetite for Top Sellers Has Food Firms Slimming Down” By Sarah Ellison, Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2004, A1 “Seizing the Moment of Truth: Procter & Gamble” By Todd Weasserman, Brandweek, Oct. 10, 2005, M8-M18 (Available on Blackboard) “In the Zone” By Tom Lowry, Business Week, October 17, 2005, 66-78. April 4 T Line Extensions & Assortment “Extend Profits, Not Product Lines” By John A. Quelch and David Kenny, Harvard Business Review, Sept.Oct. 1994, pp.153-160. (Available on Blackboard) “While Managers Embrace Variety, Too Many Choices Frustrate Consumers” By Emily Nelson, Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2001

“Should You Take Your Brand To Where The Action Is?” By David Aaker, Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct. 1997, pp. 135-143. (Available on Blackboard) “BMW: Will Panke’s High-Speed Approach Hurt the Brand” By Gail Edmondson, Business Week, June 9, 2003. ***Brand Audit Worksheet 4 Due*** April 6 Th Line Extensions & Assortment Case: Procter &Gamble Company (A) (Harvard Business School #9-584-047) ***CASE ANALYSIS DUE*** April 11 T Managing Brands Over Time I “Managing Brands for the Long Run: Brand Reinforcement and Revitalization Strategies” By Kevin Lane Keller, California Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 3, Spring 1999, pp.102-124. (Available on Blackboard) “Just What You Need!” By Deborah Ball et al., Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2004 “Back to the Drawing Board: Campbell Soup” By Sonia Reyes, Brandweek, April 30, 2001, pp.20-26 “The Man Who Fixed Kellogg” By Matthew Boyle, Fortune, September 6, 2004, 218-226. “Hasbro Has Kids Hopping” By William Symonds, Business Week, August 15, 2005, 80-81 April 13 Th Managing Brands Over Time II & Review “ Honda’s Midlife Makeover” By Keith Naughton, Newsweek, Aug. 5, 2002, pp.42-43. “Will Harley-Davidson Hit the Wall?” By John Helyar, Fortune, August 12, 2002 “Extreme Makeover”

Robert Berner, Business Week, November 1, 2004 April 18 T April 20 Th April 25 T April 27 Th May 2 T May 4 Th TBA Exam II Group Workday Presentations Presentations Presentations ***FINAL BRAND AUDIT REPORT DUE MAY 4***

APPENDIX A CASE ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION QUESTIONS Introducing New Coke Jan. 24

Case Analysis: Evaluate Coke’s brand equity (prior to launch of New Coke) in terms of Keller’s CBBE pyramid. Defend either: OPTION A: Yes, New Coke should have been launched. OPTION B: No, New Coke should NOT have been launched. Reflection: 1) What is Coke’s brand meaning? 2) How was Coke’s brand meaning created? 3) Did Coke properly respond to Pepsi Challenge? 4) What roles do brands play in consumers’ lives? 5) Who owns the brand?

Land Rover North America, Inc

***Individual Case Analysis Due Jan. 31***

Case Analysis: Write 3 positioning statements for U.S. Land Rover Discovery: 1) Definitive Family 4 X 4 2) Evolved Land Rover 3) Dual Positioning: Family 4X4 + Evolved Land Rover The positioning statements should be in the following format: Product/Brand Is Unique and Most Important Claim Among All Competitive Frame For Target Market Because Support, Reasons Why Recommend the best positioning for Land Rover. Defend your positioning. Reflection: 1) Why do people buy SUVs? How do subjective perceptions differ from objective perceptions? 2) Who is the typical SUV target consumer? Is this changing? 3) What are the differences among competitive SUV offerings? 4) What are the perceptions of Land Rover among US consumers? 5) Is a dual positioning effective in short-term? sustainable in long-term?

HEB Own Brands Case Analysis:

***Individual Case Analysis Due Feb.21*** Assume you were the H-E-B executive in charge of the initial launch of H-E-B Own Brands in the bottled water category. Recommend a positioning and pricing strategy for H-E-B own brands in the bottled water category. Justify your answer. OPTION A: Two (2) Own Brands (Glacia and Hill Country Fare) OPTION B: One (1) Own Brand (Glacia or Hill Country Fare)

Reflection: 1) How has the introduction of Glacia affected H-E-B profits in the bottled water category? 2) Should H-E-B introduce a Hill Country Fare brand of bottled water? If so, recommend a positioning and pricing strategy for HCF relative to Glacia. 3) What is the role of H-E-B and Hill Country Fare as Own Brands labels? How should these be positioned and priced respective to other national brands in category? How should they respond to competitive price promotions? 4) What is the role of Own Brands in H-E-B’s overall corporate strategy? What is its role as a strategic lever versus retailers? Versus Wal-Mart?

Habitat for Humanity International

March 23

(Skim p1-8, Analyze p9-14)

Case Analysis: Evaluate Interbrand’s valuation of Habitat for Humanity. Reflection: 1) What are the brand drivers for Habitat for Humanity? 2) Critique Habitat for Humanity on Interbrand’s 7 Dimensions of Brand Strength. 3) Do you agree with Interbrand’s $1.8 Billion valuation of Habitat for Humanity International?

Procter & Gamble Company (A)

***Individual Case Analysis Due April 6***

Case Analysis: Defend the following recommendation regarding H-80 to Chris White: OPTION A: Introduce a new fourth LDL brand. Provide details regarding its positioning & likely cannibalization of existing P&G brands. Add H-80 to an existing brand. Provide details regarding which existing brand is best-suited for line extension with H-80, its positioning, and likely cannibalization of existing P&G brands.

OPTION B:

APPENDIX B BRAND AUDIT Brand Audit Worksheets Four brand audit worksheets are required but will not be graded. The purpose of the worksheets is to keep the team on track for the audit project and provide an opportunity for constructive feedback. Worksheets should be 1-2 pages typed. (Note that bullet format is acceptable as long as point is clearly conveyed and include supporting evidence/analysis). Worksheet #1: Brand Selection (DUE: Feb. 14) Provide a list of team members. Identify the top 3 brands chosen by your team for the brand audit project. For each brand, identify 2 important challenges facing the brand (provide 2 footnote references for each challenge).

Worksheet #2: Competitive Situation (DUE: March 9) Profile competitive brands and market situation. Assess your brand’s positioning relative to competition. Worksheet #3: Marketing Programs and CBBE Pyramid (DUE: March 28) Worksheet #3 consists of two parts. 1) Analyze the firm’s branding and marketing programs. How do they contribute to brand knowledge? i) Analyze the brand graphics (logos, names, packages). ii) Analyze the brand’s past and current advertising campaigns. iii) Analyze the brand’s product, promotions, distribution, and pricing. 3) One page summary of the brand’s customer-based brand equity (Keller’s CBBE) pyramid. Identify the brand associations for each building block in the pyramid. Worksheet #4: Preliminary Survey (DUE: April 4) Develop a preliminary draft of the questionnaire for the brand exploratory to assess key dimensions of CBBE pyramid and test market recommendations.

Final Brand Audit Report The final report consists of a brand inventory, brand exploratory and provides recommendations concerning how to build and manage equity for the brand chosen. Your written summary should not exceed 20 double-spaced typed pages, plus a one-page executive summary, appendices as necessary, and complete references (1” margins, 12-point type). The final report is due the last class day, May 4. Suggested Components of Final Brand Audit Report (sequence may vary) 1. History and Overview (1 page) The first page is an overview of the brand and its history. 2. Key Challenges Facing Brand (1page) The second page should set-up the key challenges facing brand. The challenges should relate to brand architecture, brand portfolio, brand extension, and/or brand revitalization. 3. Brand Inventory (5 pages plus exhibits) Brand inventories are comprehensive summaries of a firm’s marketing and branding program. a.) Detail the brand architecture. i. Graphically display the brand hierarchy. ii. Discuss the roles of brands in the portfolio. Focus on your selected brand and other brands deemed relevant to your brand. iii. Discuss the hierarchy relationship of your brand. b.) Analyze the firm’s branding and marketing programs. How do they contribute to brand knowledge? How consistent have they been over time? Is there consistency between the brand and marketing elements? i. Analyze the brand graphics (logos, names, packages). ii. Analyze the brand’s past and current advertising campaigns. iii. Analyze the brand’s product, promotions, distribution, and pricing. c.) Profile competitive brands and market situation. 4. Brand Exploratory (5 pages plus exhibits) Brand exploratories are in-depth profiles of consumers’ brand knowledge structures. a.) Develop a detailed and accurate profile of current brand knowledge structures. In appendix, provide specifics about survey and data collection to assess brand knowledge structures. b.) Assess the brand’s associations at each level of CBBE pyramid. c.) Discuss if consumers’ knowledge structures have undergone any significant or recent changes. 5. Recommendations (4 pages) Make 3-4 recommendations to the brand concerning how the brand should be managed over the next 5 years by critically analyzing the brand inventory and brand

exploratory. Your recommendations need to be supported by data from your brand inventory and brand exploratory. Brand Audit Presentations Each team will present their brand audit to the class in 20 minute presentations + 5 minutes of Q&A on April 27, May 2, and May 4. Such a short time prohibits a comprehensive coverage of the brand audit contained in the final report. Identify and present the key points of the brand inventory and brand exploratory that are relevant to your recommendations. Dress is business casual. E-mail me a copy of the presentation slides the day BEFORE your scheduled presentation.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful