Module 4: Discussion — AI in Marketing

Discussion – Module 4: Discussion — AI in Marketing

Instructions for Initial Post:

How do AI and big data influence consumer decision-making, and how do these changes shape the marketing strategies of firms?

Consider how AI-driven recommendations, predictive analytics, and personalized marketing impact consumer choices.
Discuss how firms adjust their strategies in response to AI-powered insights and big data trends.
Provide examples of companies successfully leveraging AI and big data to refine their marketing approaches.

Instructions for Responses:

Be sure to engage with your peers by responding thoughtfully to at least two classmates. Soft Word Limit: 500 words.

Module 4: Assignment — Pepsi Case Study

Due Sunday by 11:59pm
Points 75
Submitting a file upload
File Types docx and pdf

Assignment – Module 4: Assignment — Pepsi Case Study

Completion Instructions:

Read: Case Study: Applying the BCG Matrix to PepsiCos Product Portfolio. Watch the video on BCG Matrix [].

Answer the following questions:

How should PepsiCo balance the need to invest in high-growth Question Marks like Bubly against the security provided by Cash Cows like Pepsi and Lays?
What strategies could PepsiCo adopt to turn a Dog like Tropicana into a more profitable part of the portfolio?

Feel free to use additional resources.

Submission Instructions:

Submit a coherent write up in a docx or pdf format on Canvas. While there are no specific guidelines for font size, line spacing, font colors etc., consider this as a report that you would submit to the top management team (TMT) – as such make it an official looking document! Your write should be between 1000-1200 words / 2 pages single spaced / 4 pages double spaced (soft limit). Provide relevant citations.

Complete and submit the assignment by 23:59 CST Sunday.

Grading Rubric

Your assignment will be graded according to the grading rubric.

Rubric

Module 4 Pepsi Case Grading Rubric

Module 4 Pepsi Case Grading Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication of BCG Matrix to PepsiCo’s Portfolio	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentThorough and insightful application of the BCG Matrix to Bubly, Pepsi, Lays, and Tropicana with strong reasoning and real-world examples.13 to >10.0 ptsGoodClear application with relevant points, but lacks depth or detailed reasoning. 10 to >6.0 ptsNeeds ImprovementBasic understanding shown, but lacks clear examples or depth in applying the framework.6 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsIncorrect or minimal application of the BCG Matrix; lacks relevance to PepsiCo.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInvestment and Strategic Balancing for Growth and Security	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentProvides a well-supported argument on how PepsiCo should balance investment in Question Marks vs. Cash Cows, with strong strategic insights.13 to >10.0 ptsGoodGood discussion on investment balance but lacks strong supporting examples or depth. 10 to >6.0 ptsNeeds ImprovementGeneral discussion with limited analysis of trade-offs between growth and security.6 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsWeak or missing discussion on balancing investments; lacks strategic insight.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrategies for Revitalizing Tropicana (Dogs to Stars/Question Marks)	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentProposes innovative and feasible strategies backed by strong reasoning and industry examples.13 to >10.0 ptsGoodOffers good strategic ideas but lacks depth or real-world examples. 10 to >6.0 ptsNeeds ImprovementSome strategies mentioned, but lacks strong connection to profitability improvement.6 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsWeak or unrealistic strategies with little to no supporting evidence.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of Supporting Evidence & Case Study Integration	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentEffectively integrates case study details, market trends, and financial data to support arguments.13 to >10.0 ptsGoodUses some relevant case study details, but could be more comprehensive. 10 to >6.0 ptsNeeds ImprovementLimited use of case study material; mostly general statements.6 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsLittle to no integration of case study or external evidence.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization, Clarity, and Grammar	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentWell-structured, logically organized response with minimal grammatical errors.13 to >10.0 ptsGoodMostly well-organized with minor clarity or grammar issues. 10 to >6.0 ptsNeeds ImprovementSome structural issues or moderate grammar errors.6 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsPoorly organized, unclear writing with frequent errors.	15 pts

Total Points: 75

Requirements: according to the question

WRITE MY PAPER

AI in Marketing