The word limit is 2000. This does not include bibliography and appendix sections.
has 4 sections:
Section A: a brief overview of the company/brand. In this section, you can use 5Cs or Swot-framework that we discussed in week 1 lecture and week 2 seminar. There is no need to use both frameworks, one is enough.
Section B:analysis of pricing strategy(s) adopted by the firm. As explained in the class,you are not asked to DO the pricing but rather give an overall overview of the type of pricing strategy(s) that the company is using. For example, penetration pricing, price skimming, premium pricing, bundle pricing, premium pricing,etc. All these methods are explained in the class. After you explained the company’s pricing strategy(s), then you outline your own evaluation and recommendations. This should not take more than a paragraph. In some cases that the company is doing a fairly good job, you can state that and justify why you think the current strategy(s) are good.
Section C:analysis of branding strategies. In class we discussed 3 branding strategies(mind-share, emotional, and cultural). In this section, you are required to explain which one of these strategy(s) your brand is taking and why (bear in mind that a combination of strategies might be used). You can back your argument with examples from the online or print advertisements, promotion campaigns, and product types that the company is offering. We did a similar task with the case of easy Jet in the seminar time (you can use this case as guide). Similar to what I explained above, you then outline you revaluation/recommendations or justify why the current strategies are good and should not change.
Section D:analysis of social media strategies. In this section, you can discuss how the brand is taking advantage of different digital platforms, whether or not the brand is forming an online community, whether or not the brand is collaborating with influences and so on.
Basically survey the dispute that “… characters are, plural, shaky, situationally instituted, and locales of contestation.” The dependability or generally of personality has turned into a noteworthy battleground for sociological scholars as of late. The scandalous ‘postmodern’ turn has rendered personality a profoundly hazardous marvel. In this paper I will examine the case that characters are unsteady locales of contestation. I will do this by inspecting the disintegration of character inside postmodern hypothesis before looking at both the negative and all the more vitally, the positive results of this. This will empower a more profound comprehension of correctly what is implied by this liquid idea of personality, and where conceivable reactions and irregularities can be situated inside this hypothesis. The discussion over the soundness of personality is one that is indistinguishably connected to postmodernism. This different gathering of speculations revolve around, in Lyotard’s (1984:xxiv) acclaimed express, ‘distrust toward meta-narratives.' Postmodernists keep up that the task of innovation has fizzled, and that no single source or assemblage of information can legitimize itself as an all inclusive proportion of significant worth or character. This clearly has some significant consequences for the manners by which we would regularly consider the world. Postmodernism never again enables us to conjecture society into homogenous personalities which would then be able to be totalised in a fabulous hypothesis or meta-story. This is likewise the situation with regards to the recognizable proof of oneself. Instead of oneself keeping up a steady center of character, from a postmodern point of view personality is liquid and is dependant upon where oneself is verifiably and socially arranged. As Luntley (1985:185) takes note of, this origination of oneself compromises the specific plausibility of self-character: The loss of self-character is undermined in such a case that we arranged the self in genuine verifiable conditions, we would arrange it in things that are unforeseen and continually evolving. Along these lines, oneself would likewise be continually evolving. It would be in transition and would have no proceeding with character. When the simple personality of oneself goes under danger, at that point so does the likelihood of any coherency in social guessing. A postmodern culture is one in which the characters of the social performing artists are experiencing consistent change. Personality at that point ends up open to contestation as there is never again any extreme referent (truth, science, God and so forth.) to give all inclusive legitimation. In Lyotard’s terms, the inconceivability of a great or meta-account prompts the social being built of little stories, none of which are fundamentally more substantial than another. Any hypothesis that goes for totalising society should just be viewed as one developed from a specific point of view (e.g. one that still stays in the rationale of innovation), instead of a totalising hypothesis thusly. While postmodernism can be seen as freeing and opening up apparently boundless open doors for re-conjecturing society, it does in the meantime force new issues. Initially, there is by all accounts an irregularity in the postmodernist position, as it could be contended that the hypothesis of the disintegration of meta-stories is a kind of meta-story itself. This analysis can likewise be connected to the postmodernist interpretation of character, for in belligerence that personality is at last insecure and liquid postmodernists unintentionally give a specific unbending structure in which character works (i.e. that all character must be shaky). So while postmodernism is freeing from one viewpoint, on the other it sets points of confinement to the specific probability of any significant social hypothesis or practice. This is exemplified in the divergence between postmodern scholars, some of which see postmodernism as opening up tremendous open doors for disposing of dictator fabulous hypotheses, others see it as basically weakening as the main thing that can win in postmodern social orders is a feeling of trivial motion. Inside this contradiction the postmodern examination of personality stays sensible flawless, the two sides of the contention to a great extent acknowledge that character is liquid and precarious. By dissecting this difference we can along these lines get a superior comprehension of the different parts of liquid personality. Jean Baudrillard (1990:160-164) for instance, contends that the disintegration of character is a procedure that begun in the nineteenth century and was exacerbated in the twentieth. In the postmodern time, chronicled forms have undermined the strength of character, so it winds up difficult to definitively speculate about social personality. Inflexible personality and significance are annihilated because of the ascent of worldwide free enterprise and the downfall of the referents from innovation (truth, reason, which means, etc). ‘Gone are the referentials of creation, implication, influence, substance, history, and the entire condition of “genuine” substance’s (Baudrillard 1988:125). Personality currently turns into a fundamentally liquid and void vessel, which turns out to be briefly loaded up with substance that has no establishment or extreme importance. While for Baudrillard this can’t be thought of as an especially positive or negative marvel, as ‘great’ or ‘terrible’ never again have any genuine importance in postmodernity, it renders hypothetical and political activity to a great extent impotent. This is the reason in postmodernism we are given various writings proclaiming the finish of hypothesis, history, which means thus on. The disintegration of personality implies for some postmodernists that hypothesis and significant political activity are never again conceivable: The finish of history is, tsk-tsk, likewise the finish of the dustbins of history. There are never again any dustbins notwithstanding to discard old belief systems, old routines, old qualities … Conclusion: if there are no more dustbins of history, this is on the grounds that History itself has turned into a dustbin. It has turned into its very own dustbin. Similarly as the planet itself is turning into its very own dustbin. (Baudrillard 1994b:26) The negative parts of the absence of fixity and grounded importance in personality are in this way extremely apparent. Laclau and Mouffe then again, in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, decidedly grasp the ease and shakiness of personality. Without a doubt, they contend that the inconceivability of the conclusion of character is the thing that makes the social conceivable (1985:112). Society accordingly is consequently an inconceivable question for Laclau and Mouffe, as the field of personalities is never settled, yet the proceeding with endeavor to do this renders the likelihood of the social. Society opposes conclusion and remains everlastingly debatable as the implications created to tie the social together are just briefly settled at nodal focuses by explanation (1985:11). Verbalization is the place social relations and characters are changed. Many contrasting kinds of enunciations (political, social, logical a so on) can do this, however the imperative thing for Laclau and Mouffe is that nobody specific verbalization totalises and confines the capacity for different explanations to work uninhibitedly. Laclau and Mouffe (1985:13) contend that their idea of authority perceives the majority of battles and endeavors to draw in with it: The idea of ‘authority’ will rise accurately in a setting ruled by the experience of discontinuity and by the indeterminacy of the explanations between various battles and subject positions. Authority for Laclau and Mouffe alludes to the ‘battleground’ of character. As the character of the social is liquid and open to transaction, diverse kinds of social explanations and battles will endeavor to hegemonise society to pick up acknowledgment. While this endeavor at authority in itself is certifiably not a negative practice for Laclau and Mouffe, effectively accomplished authority is. It is subsequently basic that a solid libertarian and vote based structure is in task for this site of social authority. The appearance of vote based system is in this way a urgent crossroads in social history. Here Laclau and Mouffe (1985:186-187) agree with Claude Lefort’s investigations of the ‘majority rule upheaval’. Society before majority rule government was thought of as a bound together body with power being exemplified through that of a sovereign ruler, who was the agent of a divine being or divine beings. After the majority rule upheaval, control turns into a vacant space without reference to a supernatural underwriter or a portrayal of considerable social solidarity. A split happens between the examples of intensity, information, and the establishments of law which are never again outright. Without these establishments, no law can be settled and everything is available to addressing. Society can’t be caught or controlled, the general population wind up sovereign however their personality can never be completely given. In any case, when we are in a majority rule society, we are in threat of autocracy. This is on the grounds that a simply social power can develop after majority rules system has pulverized additional social forces, which exhibits its capacity as aggregate and concentrates from itself alone the standards of law and information. As there are never again any establishments or an inside to political power, it winds up important to tie together political spaces through authoritative verbalizations. Be that as it may, these explanations will dependably stay incomplete, as they have no extreme establishment. Any endeavor to deny the drastically open nature of the social will prompt autocracy, be it a legislative issues of the ‘left’ as per which each enmity can be wiped out and society rendered straightforward, or an extremist tyrant settling of the social into an inflexible various leveled state framework. The vote based rationale of proportionality can accordingly be hegemonised into authoritarianism. The extreme transparency of personality is accordingly encroached with the peril of authoritarianism for Laclau and Mouffe. To stay away from this, the assorted and liquid nature of character ought to be grasped inside a populist and vote based system, so no specific enunciation may hegemonise social character. This is troublesome anyway as a definitive absence of closure.>