University of Economics, Prague
Faculty of Business Administration
Bachelor´s Thesis Evaluation by the Opponent
Title of the Bachelor´s Thesis:
Author of the Bachelor´s Thesis:
Goals of the Bachelor´s Thesis:
Criteria (each max 10 points) Points awarded
1. The goals of the thesis are evident and accomplished 3
2. Demands on the acquisition of additional knowledge or skills 8
3. Adequacy and the way of the methods used 4
4. Depth and relevance of the analysis in relation to goals 5
5. Making use of literature/other resources, citing 6
6. The thesis is a well-organised logical whole 5
7. Linguistic and terminological level 9
8. Formal layout and requirements, extent 8
9. Originality, i.e. it is produced by the student 8
10. Practical/theoretical relevance/applicability 4
Total score in points (max 100) 60
Final grading dobře (3)
Overall evaluation (cca 150 words):
The author provided a revised thesis. Work has undergone some modifications, which unfortunately did not enhance the quality of the thesis to expected level. I would be just repeating myself with a similar (if not the same) comments. The topic itself promised an interesting insight into the Coca Cola’s marketing campaign, which actually never came. The thesis in general lacks the data and most of the analyses and conclusions are not data driven at all or are very superficial. The truth is, that the analysis of the competitors is conducted in a better way. Author also included the 5 Forces analysis, which he omitted in the first version. Unfortunately, it is not clear to me how it fits to the thesis and whether it is reflected in a final conclusion. I have checked the original one and revised one and it remained unchanged.
Although the modern assessment audit was described a bit more on p11, I could not see the method implemented further in the thesis. And still, most of the parts of the audit provides very general and superficial information and analyses.
The final evaluation and assessment part is still very difficult to evaluate. Especially when author is using certain tool without describing the methodology of the assessment. This applies mainly for the score card derived from Laudon (2003). It it still not clear, how author was assessing the factors on the 10-point scale. For instance, what makes the difference between the score 8 and 9? The success dimensions figure from Herhausen, Egger and Oral (2014) does still require the justification why it is mentioned in here.
The aim of the thesis was also to suggest the recommendations (practical solutions) for the improvement. What are the recommendations? And what are the recommendations based on?
Apart from the abovementioned evaluation, I would have several other comments:
INTRODUCTION – Author states, that in order to achieve the goals of the thesis, the SMART technique was applied. In which part? Or what is actually behind this SMART technique usage? --> The second version of the thesis includes one mention about SMART on p28 under the segmentation. It does not make any sense here and it is not employed the way it is described in the INTRODUCTION.
- SWOT analysis - Why is it included in the analysis of Macro Environment? Also, the inputs here are not backed enough by any research. The conclusions here could not be verified, because the source of the information is not stated. Some of the strengths are also taken directly from the company website. Thus, is it really an objective information and conclusion? Opportunities here are already suggestions.
- The ECONOMIC factors within the MACRO ENVIRONMENT are improved, but I am still missing the sources, from which the author retrieved the information.
- I would have leave the same comments on the BCG matrix even in here. There is no analyses behind that. I cannot see any added value resulting from included BCG.
- p23, Graph 3 - Author is relating the campaign's success to the total worldwide revenue of Coca Cola. I am not sure, whether the outcome is based on some deep analysis, or very simplified assumptions of the author. During the whole lifespan of the campaign, the revenues decreased from around 48 billion US dollars down to 36 billion, which is 25%. Also, even though author claims, that the revenues are stable thanks to the campaign, there is no evidence. He also mentioned that the CC campaigns during huge sport events are affecting the company's performance positively. So is it really more less stable only because of the "Share a Coke" campaign? I can not see that the causality is proven here.
E V A L U A T I O N O F T H E B A C H E L O R´S T H E S I S
The aim of this bachelor’s thesis is to carry out a marketing audit, which analyzes the ‘Share a Coke’ marketing campaign of Coca-Cola and offers practical solutions for the issues encountered along the way.
An analysis of the modern audit of marketing strategy procedures of Coca-Cola and how it affected the internationally renowned company
Max Ralph Carle
Name of the Bachelor's thesis opponent:
The employer of the opponent:
22 September 2021
Signature of the opponent
