iRubric: Promotions/Marketing rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Promotions/Marketing

Evolution 107.9 Media Lab

Rubric Code: YX3C474

By BCITRadio

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Vocational

Type: Assessment

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Enter rubric title
	Unacceptable 0 pts	Poor 2 pts	Fair 3 pts	Good 4 pts	Excellent 5 pts
On-Air (performance/script)	Unacceptable - poor articulation, mispronunciations of clients - no scripts - production is poorly developed; mic popping, levels off consistently - no mention of sponsor - minimal coverage or presentation of interesting options of event/concerts	Poor - basics only, very few details highlighted of event/concerts no attempt to engage audience - lack of attention to details - scripts unfocused with no F/B/P to engage audience - minimal mention of sponsor	Fair - one to one is attempted though missing connection to audience - includes necessary elements though choice of language or direction of script is unfocused - sponsor mention included	Good - one to one is developed - personality is evident though more formally delivered for less engagement than possible - utilized production elements effectively evident; addition of vivid verbs necessary - sponsor mention included and developed within script	Excellent - engaging one to one - unique perspective to bring out personality - strong use of words to paint pictures and create entertaining stories - logical, progressive flow, well edited for efficiency, effectiveness, and to hold attention - utilized production elements effectively and creatively - sponsor mention uniquely crafted into script
Audience Engagement(liners/survey)	Unacceptable - no attention to details - poorly executed with little attempt to connect to audience liners and/or schedule incorrect - schedule not done on time survey focus incorrect - no cross promotion attempted through social media	Poor - minimal attention to details - choice of words vague and/or irrelevant - no specific focus/direction * liners and/or schedule missing key details - sponsors names, dates, times - rotation not correct * survey questions are too wordy, irrelevant - minimal social media cross promotion	Fair - details are sufficient - choice of words adequate - direction/focus is evident liners and/or schedule are correctly filled out - a couple of mistakes - lack engaging content or sufficient dayparting survey has sufficient questions which are a Evo client focus, though wording could be developed	Good - details are interesting and developed with concentration on connection to Evo audience - language and structure are organized, professional liners include interesting added detail for announcer - schedule correct survey has thoughtful questions to elicit interesting responses	Excellent - exceptional details to engage Evo audience, stimulate broca and T.O.M. - well written with proper grammar, spelling, unique word choices liners include gems of unique info. survey questions are specific and targeted to find unique info for Evo Sales to utilize effectively
External Relations (pictures/video)	Unacceptable - no pictures/videos - no social media involvement, minimal effort in pushing facebook/twitter/ instgram	Poor - no evidence of logo in pictures,/videos no creativity in framing - minimal effort in creating an engaging piece - minimal effort in posting or spreading the message	Fair - pictures/videos have included logo in functional manner - creativity in framing beginning to develop in an interesting, eye-catching manner - social media cross promotion is not consistent	Good - pictures/videos develop a story and showcase Evolution through logo association - creativity evident and entertaining aspect(s) highlighted - social media cross promotion is consistent and thorough	Excellent - engaging pictures/videos which capture attention, entertains, and relates to Evo audience - highly developed ability to relate concepts/ideas through visual medium in a unique manner - sophisticated and thorough social media cross promotion
Report (reflection)	Unacceptable - includes bare minimum of requirements - no reflection or insights into learning - no ideas for follow up or follow through or any further contact information - paperwork incomplete	Poor - paperwork sufficient - minimal reflections or insights into learning - no constructive observations	Fair - paperwork has detailed information - evidence of learning and insights - some observations for potential/further ideas	Good - paperwork is organized, professional, and has complete information - writing reflects some solid insights into accomplishments and understanding of role and relationship to audience - some good recommendations/ suggestions	Excellent - paperwork is concise, complete with exceptional detail and evidence of learning - writing reflects deeper insights into experience and has some references to class concepts taught - defined future ideas

Subjects:

Vocational

Types:

Assessment

Discuss this rubric