Art, Music, and Creative Writing homework help

/in /by

Case Discussion Questions:Evaluate the overall effectiveness of the “Fair and Square” repositioning strategy. How well or poorly do all the elements work together or work at odds with one another to deliver a coherent whole? What assumptions about JC Penney’s 5 C’s (customer, competitors/ collaborators, context, and company) must hold true for the repositioning to be effective? What does Johnson perceive in these factors that lead him to believe that “Fair and Square” pricing can be a successful approach for JC Penney? How confident are you that these assumptions are correct? Is JC Penney a brand that can be “Target-ized” or “Apple-ized”? Why or why not? In what fundamental ways does JC Penney differ from these two brands? Does Johnson’s plan address these differences in ways that make the success of JC Penney’s new strategy more or less likely Do you agree with the changes Johnson is making to the pricing scheme that set to take effect August 1st? Are they enough to turn things around? What should Johnson do now? Looking out on year, will JC Penney be a stronger or weaker brand if he stays on the current course?Rubric     Case Rubric 2019 Criteria Ratings      Pts     Edit criterion description Delete criterion rowThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Identification of Main issues/problem and Analysis and Evaluation of issues/problem. _3429view longer descriptionRange                         threshold:            pts         Edit ratingDelete rating10.0 to >7.0 pts                 ExcellentIdentifies and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the main issues/problems in the case study. Presents an insightful and thorough analysis of all identified issues/problems.blankEdit ratingDelete rating7.0 to >4.0 pts                 GoodIdentifies and demonstrates an accomplished understanding of most of the issues/problems. Presents a thorough analysis of most of the issues identified._1852Edit ratingDelete rating4.0 to >1.0 pts                 PoorIdentifies and demonstrates acceptable understanding of some of the issue/problems in the case study. Presents a superficial or incomplete analysis of some of the identified issues._5103Edit ratingDelete rating1.0 to >0.0 pts                 UnacceptableDid not identifies and demonstrates acceptable understanding of some of the issue/problems in the case study. Did not provide analysis or the analysis is not accurate._7392Edit ratingDelete rating0.0 to >0 pts                 No Marksblank_2        This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.                  pts         /         10.0 pts — Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion rowThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRecommendations on effective solutions/strategies _4070view longer descriptionRange                         threshold:            pts         Edit ratingDelete rating10.0 to >7.0 pts                 ExcellentSupports diagnosis and opinions with strong arguments and well-documented evidence; presents a critical view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective._7851Edit ratingDelete rating7.0 to >4.0 pts                 GoodSupports diagnosis and opinions with limited reasoning and evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided argument; demonstrates little engagement with ideas presented._1022Edit ratingDelete rating4.0 to >1.0 pts                 PoorLittle action suggested and/or inappropriate solutions proposed to the issues in the case study._4705Edit ratingDelete rating1.0 to >0.0 pts                 UnacceptableNo action suggested and/or inappropriate solutions proposed to the issues in the case study._8752Edit ratingDelete rating0.0 to >0 pts                 No Marks_866        This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.                  pts         /         10.0 pts — Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion rowThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConsiders the opinions of others in a respectful manner by responding or commenting to other students. _3778view longer descriptionRange                         threshold:            pts         Edit ratingDelete rating10.0 to >7.0 pts                 ExcellentReplies substantially to two or more other students’ posts with quality feedback. References or experiences are always included in support of the answers._575Edit ratingDelete rating7.0 to >4.0 pts                 GoodReplies substantially to one other student’s post with constructive feedback in a respectful manner._4076Edit ratingDelete rating4.0 to >1.0 pts                 PoorReplies briefly to one other student’s post with constructive feedback in a respectful manner._335Edit ratingDelete rating1.0 to >0.0 pts                 UnacceptableDoes not consider the positions of other students or do not respond to student generated questions with constructive feedback in a respectful manner._2770Edit ratingDelete rating0.0 to >0 pts                 No Marks_72        This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.                  pts         /         10.0 pts — Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion rowThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePostings follow course requirements of timeliness. Initial posts are completed by Friday 11:59pm ET and replies or comments to other students are completed by Saturday 11:59pm ET. _7687view longer descriptionRange                         threshold:            pts         Edit ratingDelete rating10.0 to >7.0 pts                 ExcellentPostings and replies/comments always occur in a timely manner._1760Edit ratingDelete rating7.0 to >4.0 pts                 GoodPosting and replies/comments frequently occur in a timely manner most of the time._3667Edit ratingDelete rating4.0 to >1.0 pts                 PoorPosting and replies/comments occasionally occur in a timely manner most of the time._9834Edit ratingDelete rating1.0 to >0.0 pts                 UnacceptablePosting and replies/comments do not occur in a ti