MKT 300 Week 9 Case Study: Harley-Davidson
This course uses Pangram to review submissions for AI-generated content.
Week 9 — Case Study: Harley-Davidson 100 Points
Submission Requirement: Up to 1 file allowed
Individual case study · 100 points · Due Week 9
Harley-Davidson has one of the strongest brand identities in any industry and an ageing core customer. Analyse the brand management problem that creates.
Consider:
What does the Harley brand actually stand for, and to whom? Separate what the company says from what the market believes. Where does its brand equity come from — awareness, associations, perceived quality, loyalty? Which of these is most at risk? The company has repeatedly tried to reach younger and broader riders, including electric models. Assess those attempts: did they extend the brand or dilute it? What is the real risk of repositioning a brand whose value rests substantially on heritage and community? Recommend a brand strategy for the next five years and defend it against an obvious objection from the other direction.
Grading Criteria
Points
Application of Course Concepts
40
Exemplary: consistently applies brand equity, brand identity and repositioning concepts accurately to Harley-Davidson’s situation.
40 / 40
Proficient: mostly applies brand equity, brand identity and repositioning concepts accurately to Harley-Davidson’s situation, with minor gaps.
32 / 40
Developing: applies brand equity, brand identity and repositioning concepts accurately to Harley-Davidson’s situation in most respects, but underdeveloped in places.
24 / 40
Beginning: only partially applies brand equity, brand identity and repositioning concepts accurately to Harley-Davidson’s situation.
16 / 40
Not Evident: rarely applies brand equity, brand identity and repositioning concepts accurately to Harley-Davidson’s situation, or missing entirely.
0 / 40
Evidence and Analysis
25
Exemplary: consistently supports the analysis with real evidence about the company, its customers and its attempts to broaden.
25 / 25
Proficient: mostly supports the analysis with real evidence about the company, its customers and its attempts to broaden, with minor gaps.
20 / 25
Developing: supports the analysis with real evidence about the company, its customers and its attempts to broaden in most respects, but underdeveloped in places.
15 / 25
Beginning: only partially supports the analysis with real evidence about the company, its customers and its attempts to broaden.
10 / 25
Not Evident: rarely supports the analysis with real evidence about the company, its customers and its attempts to broaden, or missing entirely.
0 / 25
Recommendations and Judgement
20
Exemplary: consistently offers clear recommendations that follow from the analysis, with the trade-offs acknowledged.
20 / 20
Proficient: mostly offers clear recommendations that follow from the analysis, with the trade-offs acknowledged, with minor gaps.
16 / 20
Developing: offers clear recommendations that follow from the analysis, with the trade-offs acknowledged in most respects, but underdeveloped in places.
12 / 20