AIM University Group

Learning Outcome 1: ""Referred

AC 1.1. Referred, Was unable to clearly define Marketing and unable to apply to case
AC 1.2. Referred. Did not correctly identify marketing process
AC 1.3. Incorrect answer to marketing Research

The learner did not demonstrate sufficient grasp of the subject, but otherwise a promising learner will be able to better apply himself if time is spent on the subject""

Learning Outcome 2: "Referred

AC 2.1. Referred. Did not identify a target audience
AC 2.2. Referred. Did not answer correctly
AC 2.3. Referred. Did not answer correctly

The learner did not demonstrate sufficient grasp of the subject, but otherwise a promising learner will be able to better apply himself if time is spent on the subject"

Learning Outcome 3: "Referred 41%

Your responses demonstrate a foundational understanding of digital marketing concepts such as content marketing, micro-influencers, SEO, and greenwashing. You show awareness of key ideas like authenticity, cost-effectiveness, and audience targeting. However, this examination required analytical depth and structured evaluation supported by explicit evidence from the case study. Most responses remained descriptive rather than evaluative, and critical case metrics (48% organic growth, 700 email signups, 9% engagement rate, 70% Google touchpoint, 26% conversion rate) were not integrated into your arguments. Stronger answers would have compared strategic alternatives, discussed risks and limitations, used measurable KPIs, and presented balanced arguments (especially in debate and crisis management questions).

To pass, you must move beyond explanation and demonstrate structured critical reasoning, quantitative linkage to case data, and clearer strategic recommendations supported by digital marketing terminology."

Learning Outcome 4: "Referred 59%

Your paper demonstrates a clear understanding of the Paradise Pulse campaign and shows that you grasp fundamental marketing concepts such as AIDA, SERVQUAL, KPIs, ROI, and cultural commodification. You successfully identify the campaign’s sustainability positioning and acknowledge both benefits and ethical risks. However, at Level 5, stronger analytical depth and academic integration were required. Much of your response remains descriptive rather than critically evaluative. While models were mentioned, they were not consistently applied with structured analysis, measurable interpretation, or academic support. KPI targets (20%, 30%, 15%, 10%) were referenced but not rigorously evaluated in terms of performance impact or ROI implications. Recommendations were reasonable but lacked measurable targets and strategic innovation.

To achieve a pass, you must move from explaining what happened to critically evaluating why it worked, how effective it was compared to alternatives, and what measurable improvements should be implemented. Incorporating academic sources, deeper segmentation analysis, and quantified strategic proposals would significantly strengthen your work."