Describe two long-term benefits for PU of its marketing strategies (lines 60–64).

Explain the possible impacts on PU of the ethical issues it faces (lines 101–117).

Background given in the case study: PU’s marketing strategies are “aggressive” (line 60) and PU, unlike its competitors, keeps investing a lot in its marketing (“Adriana saw marketing expenditure as a worthwhile investment”, (lines 62-63)), especially in terms of promotion (communicating actively on PU’s “achievements both in research and teaching” (line 63) and on its “competitive fees” (line 64)).

Long-term benefits include:

The main anticipated long-term benefit (i.e. the strategic aim that justifies these marketing strategies) is to get more students (as they are the ‘customers’ of PU), both local students (as “many local students have decided to postpone their studies for a year”, (lines 52-53)) and international students (as they “pay higher fees to the university than the fees that the university receives from local student” (lines 54-55)). For PU, more students mean more revenue (more income), which improves the cash-flow situation (very important, as PU has “cash-flow problems”, as repeated several times, lines 57, 69 and 85).

Other long-term benefits of PU’s marketing strategies include:

• other external stakeholders will be aware of PU’s success – stakeholders from the private sector (e.g. Di Jones who is “director of a multinational computer company that is funding some of PU’s IT research”, (line 108)), or in the public sector (local and regional politicians, so that they remember PU and keep supporting it);
• attracting new staff to PU, as its intensive promotion indirectly showcases it as a potential employer of choice.

N.B. The question is not about the marketing mix (4Ps, or even 7Ps). If the answer is just an outline of PU’s marketing mix (describing PU’s Product (high quality courses), Price (competitive fees) etc.); award up to [2], as it shows some understanding of marketing, but not of the topic of strategy, nor of the notion of long-term benefits. Likewise, answers about ATL and BTL forms of promotion and answers that use the Ansoff matrix (e.g. product development: PU offering new courses) may also be partially credited, as they display knowledge of marketing.

Accept any other relevant long-term benefit.

If a candidate provides context that provides a benefit, but the benefit is not explicitly stated, the “second” mark can be awarded i.e. [0] + [1].

Mark as a [2] + [2].

Award [1] for each appropriate benefit identified and [1] for some description and application. Award a maximum of [2] for each benefit. Maximum [4] for two benefits.

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

Ethical issues and impacts include:

• Appointment of new trustee with links to slave trade: Can PU resolve? Will the problem go away? What impact is it having? If the trustee is sacked what are the implications? Loss of talented and valuable person. Reputational loss.
• Guest speaker: That’s a matter for the students to decide. Should Adriana get involved? How much bad publicity will it generate? Does PU want confrontation with students? What about free speech? What are the laws covering this/university regulations? Impacts depends on what students decide. PU could lose some reputation if speaker comes, could seem authoritarian, against free speech if speaker does not attend invitation to speak at Politics Society.
• Over-priced medicines to LDCs: If funding is stopped then this action could impact on university research.

Accept any other relevant impact.

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

Award a maximum of [3] for a theoretical answer or for limiting answer to only one impact.

Award a maximum of [5] if the answer is mainly descriptive but in context.

Award a maximum of [6].

Most candidates were able to describe at least one benefit of PU's aggressive marketing strategies; the second benefit was sometimes redundant, only repeating the first one, but with different words. Weaker answers were sometimes too theoretical, about brand loyalty or the marketing mix, without application to the context.

Many candidates were able to explain some of the impacts of the ethical issues that PU faces. Stronger answers used subject terminology well, for example about stakeholders, brand reputation and revenue streams. As in previous sessions however, weaker answers just lifted sentences from the case study, without much added value.