Define the term unique selling point/proposition (USP).

Calculate the debtor days for MM at the end 2020 (show all your working).

Explain one method MM could use to improve its liquidity.

Explain how the people element of the extended marketing mix has influenced MM ’s marketing strategy.

Discuss how cultural differences within MM may influence employer–employee relationships.

USP (unique selling point/proposition), the feature or features that make a product or service different (or is differentiated) from other similar products of competitors.
It is the product/service that has the USP, not the business.

Candidates are not required to use the context of MM but should not be penalized if they do.

Award [1] for some understanding.

Award [2] for clear understanding. Candidates do not have to word exactly as above.

$\mathrm{Debtor} \mathrm{days} \mathrm{ratio}=\frac{\mathrm{debtors}}{\mathrm{sales} \mathrm{revenue}}\times 365 =\frac{16}{146 }\times 365$

= 40 days (or just 40)

Award [2] for correct answer (allow rounding).

Award [1] for an attempt or if correct answer has $m or million.

As 2020 is a leap year you can allow 16/146 x 366 = 40.11 days. If candidates correctly use some or all data from 2019, they can be awarded one mark (e.g. 18/175 x 365 = 37.54 days).

Do not reward formula only.

• Reduce some of the expenditure (planned pay increases, payments to directors, marketing)
• Replace overdraft with longer term loan 
• Decrease credit terms to customers
• Change credit terms with suppliers
• Improve stock control e.g. reduce stock levels
• Increase sales
• Sell unused assets, but unlikely

Methods that change the balance between current assets and current liabilities in the right direction should be rewarded. Methods suggested must improve liquidity for MM.

Some methods, such as debt factoring and using cash to reduce overdraft, may improve cash flow but do not improve liquidity so should not be rewarded.

Award [1] for identifying a method and [1] for explaining in context.

Accept any other reasonable reason.

Influences could include:

• training
• aspects of personal selling
• high levels of customer service
• helping customers
• working closely with customers
• after-sales service.

Accept any other relevant reason.

Candidates need to show the impact on the marketing strategy of MM. e.g. enhanced training may lead to better customer service which would aid marketing leading to the possibility of charging higher prices. e.g. improved after-sales service can lead to a stronger reputation leading to higher sales/increased market share etc. 
Candidates do not need to specifically define the people element of the extended marketing mix but should show understanding.

Award [1] for some understanding of the people element of the extended marketing mix. [1] for a relevant influence and [2] for application/context. Maximum award overall: [4].

PLEASE NOTE: This content is not included in the syllabus for 2024 exams onward. Related parts of this multi-part question may be used.

Refer to Paper 1 markbands for May 2016 forward, available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials.

The key factor is that there are offices in the UK and India and customers around the world.

In the UK employers might:

• set up competitive environments
• give employees responsibility 
• expect competition
• be more flexible with contracts including employment contracts
• this might mean short term contracts, relying on money as a motivator as well as rewarding initiative and taking on responsibility
• this would allow for flexible structures and informality
• could impact on leadership style which is less likely to be autocratic than other styles
• could impact on employer/employee negotiations – more difficult.

In India employers might:

• have to manage people from a wide range of regional cultures
• emphasize teamwork
• set up hierarchical structures
• expect formality 
• this might mean formal structures and clear divisions of responsibility. Money likely to be less of a motivator. Individual initiative will be less strong
• could impact on leadership styles, more likely to be autocratic.

Candidates are expected to largely make use of the evidence in Section B but can take evidence from the wider case evidence.

Candidates may focus some of their answer on possible cultural differences between the owners, however marks may be limited by the lack of context used.

Candidate may make reference to the work of Charles Handy on different types of culture (power; task etc.). Whilst not required it is a valid line of discussion.

Candidates need to show the impact on employer/employee relations at MM.

Accept any other relevant discussion.

Marks should be allocated according to the paper 1 markbands for May 2016 forward section B.

For an answer with no effective use of context (theoretical answer) award maximum [3].

For an answer that does not focus on the impact on employer/employee relations award a maximum [4].

Award [4] if comparisons are presented as an undeveloped list.

For an answer that is lacking balance e.g. only looks at one country; only looks at advantages etc. award a maximum [6].

Both sides of discussion considered but descriptively max [6].

Both countries considered, good use of evidence, particularly from section B, but with no/limited effective comparison/evaluation award a maximum of [8].

For [10] marks a fully supported comparison/evaluation with good use of evidence, particularly from section B. 

Most candidates were able to give a definition of unique selling point/proposition. In several responses, the definition related to the business as a whole. This is not sufficiently precise. USP should apply to a product or service rather than a business.

Most candidates achieved two marks. Those candidates that failed to gain two marks either used a different measure of unit (rather than days) or made an error of calculation.

Improving liquidity was not a concept that was generally well understood. Too many responses made general comments such as ‘reduce liabilities’ or ‘reduce the overdraft’. Better answers gave a method such as ‘changing credit terms given to customers’ and then relating that to the figure calculated in part (i).

Too many candidates interpreted ‘people’ in the extended marketing mix as the customers. Better responses tended to focus on the employees. While the use of customers could be an acceptable interpretation of the concept if the focus is on how the employee/customer relationship is developed in terms of customer services it is not a valid approach to answering this question if there is no link to employees. The second half of the answer needed to show the impact on the marketing strategy of MM. This was often a weakness of responses. The best answers focussed on issues such as training in respect of customer service and the impact this can have on the marketing strategy of MM.

This question generated a range of responses. The best candidates took the stimulus material on the cultural differences between business in the UK and in India, drew out the differences and then developed these ideas in how the employer/employee relationships might change in terms of organization structures, sometimes with reference to Handy or references to levels of hierarchy and spans of control, management and leadership with reference to differing styles. In weaker answers issues such as teamwork, individuality, competitiveness, building relations with customers were often discussed but without developing how these issues impact on employer/employee relations. Too many candidates failed to make enough use of the stimulus material provided in Section B. Answers that only make use of the pre-released case study often limit the marks that are available.