You analyse and critically evaluate Manchester United FC in terms of strategic fit and marketing effectiveness. This report provides the opportunity for analysis and reflection on the marketing activities of a real sports entity. You will Manchester United FC as a frame of reference to complete this assignment.
Identify sponsorship and/or promotional efforts – The next step is to identify a sponsorship and/or promotional effort for Manchester United FC. Research the sponsorship/promotional opportunities that Manchester United offers, the sponsors with which the organization has a relationship, as well as the campaigns they have been involved in.
Analyse sponsorship and/or promotional efforts Describe and evaluate the sponsorship and/or promotional effort for Manchester United FC. Subheadings need to write about: ⢠Sponsorship/promotion Introduction (e.g. overview) ⢠Sponsorship/promotion Objectives (e.g. strategy, motives and benefits) ⢠Sponsorship/promotion Fit (e.g. congruence. natural links with the sport, sponsor and target segment) ⢠Sponsorship/promotion Impact (e.g. awareness, image, purchase behaviour, fan engagement) ⢠Sponsorship/promotion Risks (e.g. positive/negative experiences or associations, challenges, risks).
Developing your report Carefully follow the report guidelines given below. Provide a thoughtful, insightful discussion on the effectiveness of the sponsorship and/or promotional effort. Be sure to make reference to relevant marketing concepts where appropriate
Characters–The main characters in the play are Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters. Mrs. Peters is the wife of the sheriff, and Mrs. Hale is the wife of Mr. Hale, a neighbor to the Wrights, who never appear in the play, but whose personalities are described. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters seem like typical country wives from the time period of the play. They are familiar with things in the kitchen and typical women’s activities of the period (such as making bread, putting up preserves, and quilting) and show through their dialogue and actions that they understand and generally sympathize with the life lived by Mrs. Wright, who has been accused of killing her husband. Though all of the action takes place in a household kitchen: the two women stay in the background whenever the male characters in the play (the sheriff, Mr. Hale, and the county attorney) are on stage; but when the men leave the stage, the women become free to speak to each other and speculate about the events in the play. While the men tend to be “all business’ in looking for clues as to actions and motivations at what is essentially a crime scene, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, who have been brought along by the men only to pick up a few personal items to take to Mrs. Wright in jail, are more interested in speculating about what Mrs. Wright’s life must have been like isolated in a lonely marriage with a hard, loveless man.
SettingâHistorically and geographically, the action of the play is in a rural setting (apparently Nebraska or western Iowa, based on one character’s reference to Omaha): sometime in the early part of the 20th century, probably contemporary with the time period in which the play was written (1916). The Wrights’ house is still warmed by fire from a stove, and Hale’s motivation for seeing the Wrights is given as his desire to go in on a party-line telephone with them. Perhaps more significant is the physical setting, as all of the action in the play takes place in a dismal, dingy kitchen that seems to show a kind of hopelessness to Mrs. Wright’s situation. The kitchen setting is also a place where the women are clearly more aware of the importance of things than the men are, which accounts a great deal for the fact that they are able to figure out which clues are actually important and which ones are trivial.
Symbolism–Several small aspects of symbolism serve to characterize the Wrights, even though they never appear in the play. Hale’s acknowledgement that Wright didn’t want a telephone shows how closed off Wright was to communication. This manner makes other people (especially women) avoid him, according to Mrs. Hale. The birdâand more specifically the broken door of its cageâsymbolizes Mrs. Wright. who Mrs. Hale tells us was ‘like a bird herself.” Birds long to fly and be free (or at least to sing), but Wright has broken Minnie down by keeping her caged in the lonely farmhouse. By Mrs. Hale’s account, Wright’s indifference to his wife’s needs has all but killed the happy young girl she was. The bird/cage symbolism seems to imply that with Wright’s death, Minnie may have broken out of her cage and have a chance for freedom, provided she doesn’t get pegged for his murder.
Stage Direction/Notes–Staging is carefully used by the author in the opening of the play when the men march onto the scene and take center stage and the women hang back quietly. This indicates a physical distance between the two sexes that is matched by the different ways they understand the events that have happened in this farmhouse. The fact that the men dominate the dialogue whenever they are on stage shows the nature of male/female relationships at the time, with men holding all of the power and women forced to hang back in supporting roles that men see as trivial. Only when the men leave the stage do the women move to the center, showing how women appear to men primarily as sort of background trifles, not to be taken seriously. Whenever the men enter the scene, the women move again to the background. Glaspell also includes several directions to the female actresses to indicate that they see significance in the small details they discover in their time in the kitchen (bread left out of the bread box, crumbs on half the table while the other half has been cleaned), as well as details about the way the men act that show how dismissive they are of the idea that anything important can be found in the kitchen, the part of the house where women do the things they are expected to do.
Theme–Understanding the theme of this play seems to rely on looking closely at the nature of the âraceâ
between the menâs investigation and the womenâs investigation. The men, busy looking for external clues
around the farm and generally dismissive of the idea that anything of importance might be found among the
âtriflesâ that might concern women in a place like the kitchen, canât find anything specific to pin the murder
on Mrs. Wright. The women, quietly discussing internal feelings and empathizing with Mrs. Wright due to
their shared life experiences, come to a clear understanding of exactly what happened. By having them
decide not to share what they figure out, Glaspell shows that a woman’s way of looking at thingsâwhile it
might appear to focus on âtriflesâ (or trivial things) from a manâs perspectiveâcan not only be superior to a
manâs, but it can also provide the more appropriate method for judging someoneâs actions.
Questions
1) Why donât the two ladies in the play call each other by their first names?
2) What is the difference between âquiltingâ and âknottingâ?
Sample Solution
Presentation The mentor competitor relationship is generally perceived as one of the most significant relational connections in game (Jowett and Cockerill, 2002; Lyle, 1999). Before, training concentrated to a great extent on improving the physical and specialized aptitudes of the competitor; in any case, more as of late, the significance of building up the competitor’s psychosocial abilities has likewise been recognized (Miller and Kerr, 2002). It is currently acknowledged that the practices, considerations and feelings of the mentor and competitor are interconnected, with the two people having a shared thankfulness and regard for one another (Jowett and Meek, 2000; Philippe and Seiler, 2006). The fundamental objective of the mentor competitor dyad is to deliver a result of improved, superior from the competitor, and the nature of this relationship can affect essentially on whether fruitful results are accomplished. The point of this paper is to audit distributed proof on the nature and elements of the mentor competitor relationship and the potential impact of critical others on this dyad. Reasonable models to research the elements of the mentor competitor relationship Generally, the elements among mentor and competitor have been examined from the point of view of instructing initiative (Jowett, 2005). The previous models which gave a theoretical system to this examination incorporate the Mediational model (Smoll and Smith, 1989), the Multidimensional model (Chelladurai, 1993) and the Coaching model (Côté, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, Russell, 1995). These models center around the practices of the mentor, view of these practices, and the effect of such practices on result factors, for example, execution and fulfillment. Various more up to date theoretical models have been created which additionally to a great extent have a conduct center (Jowett and Cockerill, 2002; Mageau and Vallerand, 2003; Poczwardowski, Barott, Peregoy, 2002; Wylleman, 2000). Deserving of note is the Motivational model proposed by Mageau and Vallerand (2003), which might be of an incentive in the investigation of helpful inspiration, an ongoing focal point of administration look into. This thinks about whether an individual demonstrates an excellent capacity to lead others to higher execution levels or potentially give motivation using clear standards and objectives, and has been demonstrated to be an unequivocally connected with competitors’ degree of fulfillment with their mentor (Gomes, Sousa, Cruz, 2006). It tends to be contended that a noteworthy restriction of every one of these models is that they neglect to consider the non-social parts of the mentor competitor relationship (for example considerations and feelings) which may likewise be significance influencers of the adequacy and accomplishment of this relationship. The 3Cs and Co-direction models The Closeness, Commitment and Complementarity (3Cs) applied model created by Jowett and partners consolidates both conduct and non-social segments of the mentor competitor dyad, and mirrors the social parts of feelings, insights and practices, individually (Jowett, 2002; Jowett, 2003; Jowett and Cockerill, 2002; Jowett and Meek, 2000). An extra relational build, co-direction, has likewise been assessed and is incorporated into the Co-direction model (Jowett, 2006; Jowett and Clark-Carter, 2006). This includes another measurement by considering mentors’ and competitors’ discernments about one another from three unique perspectives: genuine comparability, accepted likeness and empathic getting (Jowett, 2005). Both the 3Cs and Co-direction models have been significant in late research examining the idea of the mentor competitor dyad from the point of view of the competitor in individual games including swimming (Philippe and Seiler, 2006; Poczwardowski, Barott, Jowett, 2006). Breaking down the idea of the mentor competitor relationship Notwithstanding their very own viewpoint on the mentor competitor relationship, the two individuals from the dyad will likewise frame impression of how the other part sees the relationship. Laing and partners (1966) first proposed the terms ‘direct point of view’ (for example the person’s own viewpoint) and ‘meta-point of view’ (the person’s impression of the other dyad part’s viewpoint). All the more as of late, Kenny and Acitelli (2001) built up a technique for estimating the exactness of these discernments (Kenny and Acitelli, 2001). An examination utilizing this approach has explored empathic exactness and accepted comparability in impression of closeness, duty and complementarity in the mentor competitor relationship (Jowett and Clark-Carter, 2006). Discoveries demonstrated that empathic exactness and expected comparability were clear in both mentor and competitor discernments; in any case, competitors were progressively precise in recognizing their mentors emotions as far as closeness, while in fresher connections, the two individuals indicated more elevated amounts of empathic precision. Correspondence is another significant segment of the mentor competitor dyad (Jowett, 2003; Phillipe and Seiler, 2006). Studies have shown that powerful correspondence advances a common comprehension of the significance of key issues between both dyad individuals and may along these lines diminish the probability of issues or struggle happening inside the relationship The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) is a self-report instrument created to investigate the idea of the mentor competitor relationship by inspecting closeness, responsibility and complementarity from a meta-point of view (Jowett and Ntoumanis, 2004). The legitimacy, interior consistency and unwavering quality of this poll were shown in two autonomous examples of British mentors competitor dyads. All the more as of late, a Greek language variant of the survey (GrCART-Q) has been grown, together with an adjusted form joining co-direction (Jowett, 2006). The legitimacy and unwavering quality of the two forms of this survey were affirmed in an example of mentor competitor dyads from individual games (Jowett, 2006). Powerful versus fruitful mentor competitor connections When considering the idea of the mentor competitor dyad, it is imperative to recognize compelling and effective connections. Successful connections are supported by qualities, for example, sympathy, support, acknowledgment, regard and responsiveness (Jowett and Cockerill, 2003; Jowett and Meek, 2000). While these without a doubt give positive psychosocial advantages to the competitor, they won’t really improve execution. Conversely, fruitful connections are ones in which a proportion of execution achievement has been accomplished, in spite of the fact that these may not generally be compelling in nature (Jowett, 2005). The impact of noteworthy others on the mentor competitor relationship It has been recommended that the mentor competitor relationship ought not be considered exclusively as two individuals from the dyad cooperating, yet additionally ought to likewise assess the impact of huge others. For instance, some accept that mentor administration might be a common capacity as opposed to a job taken on by the mentor alone (Jowett, 2005; Jowett and Chaundy, 2004) while on account of kids, guardians and other relatives may assume a significant job in the improvement and achievement of the competitor (Cheng, Marsh, Dowson, Martin, n.d.). To close, there is an impressive group of writing researching the nature and elements of the mentor competitor dyad and those elements which may impact the improvement, viability and achievement of this significant relationship. References Chelladurai, P. (1993). Authority. In R. N. Artist, M. Murphy, and L. K. Tennant (Eds.) Handbook on research on game brain research. New York: MacMillan. Cheng, J. H. S., Marsh, H. W., Dowson, M. and Martin, A. J. (n.d.) Exploring the impact of relationship elements of help on gymnasts’ and figure skaters’ self-idea, instruction and mental versatility: an exploration proposition. Recovered 5 July, 2008 from http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/che05309.pdf Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Trudel, P., Baria, A. and Russell, S. (1995). The training model: A grounded appraisal of master gymnastic trainers information. Diary of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 1â17. Gomes, A. R., Sousa, S. A. and Cruz, J. F. (2006). Appealling, trnasformational and visionary measurements in game administration: towards new ways for the investigation of mentor competitors connections. In N. S. Huber and M. Harvey (Eds.). Authority at the junction. College of Maryland: The James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership. Jowett, S. and Cockerill, I. M. (2002). Contradiction in the mentor competitor relationship. In I. M. Cockerill (Ed.) Solutions in Sport Psychology. London: Thomson Learning. Jowett, S. and Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medallists viewpoint of the competitor mentor relationship. Brain research of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313â31. Jowett, S. and Chaundy, V. (2004). An examination concerning the effect of mentor initiative and mentor competitor relationship on gathering grip. Gathering Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 8, 302â11. Jowett, S. and Clark-Carter, D. (2006). Impression of empathic precision and accepted likeness in the mentor competitor relationship’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 617-37. Jowett, S. and Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q): advancement and starting approval. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 14, 245â57. Jowett, S. (2002). The mentor competitor survey and dyad maps (Research Monograph No. 1). Staffordshire: School of Health, Staffordshire University. Jowett, S. (2003). At the point when the ‘special night’ is more than: a contextual investigation of a mentor competitor dyad in emergency. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 444â60. Jowett, S. (2005). The mentor competitor association. The Psychologist, 18, 412â5. Jowett, S. (2006,). Relational and basic highlights of Greek mentor competitor dyads performing in individual games. Diary of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 69â81. Jowett, S. and Cockerill, I. M. (2002). Contrariness in the co>
Presentation The mentor competitor relationship is generally perceived as one of the most significant relational connections in game (Jowett and Cockerill, 2002; Lyle, 1999). Before, training concentrated to a great extent on improving the physical and specialized aptitudes of the competitor; in any case, more as of late, the significance of building up the competitor’s psychosocial abilities has likewise been recognized (Miller and Kerr, 2002). It is currently acknowledged that the practices, considerations and feelings of the mentor and competitor are interconnected, with the two people having a shared thankfulness and regard for one another (Jowett and Meek, 2000; Philippe and Seiler, 2006). The fundamental objective of the mentor competitor dyad is to deliver a result of improved, superior from the competitor, and the nature of this relationship can affect essentially on whether fruitful results are accomplished. The point of this paper is to audit distributed proof on the nature and elements of the mentor competitor relationship and the potential impact of critical others on this dyad. Reasonable models to research the elements of the mentor competitor relationship Generally, the elements among mentor and competitor have been examined from the point of view of instructing initiative (Jowett, 2005). The previous models which gave a theoretical system to this examination incorporate the Mediational model (Smoll and Smith, 1989), the Multidimensional model (Chelladurai, 1993) and the Coaching model (Côté, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, Russell, 1995). These models center around the practices of the mentor, view of these practices, and the effect of such practices on result factors, for example, execution and fulfillment. Various more up to date theoretical models have been created which additionally to a great extent have a conduct center (Jowett and Cockerill, 2002; Mageau and Vallerand, 2003; Poczwardowski, Barott, Peregoy, 2002; Wylleman, 2000). Deserving of note is the Motivational model proposed by Mageau and Vallerand (2003), which might be of an incentive in the investigation of helpful inspiration, an ongoing focal point of administration look into. This thinks about whether an individual demonstrates an excellent capacity to lead others to higher execution levels or potentially give motivation using clear standards and objectives, and has been demonstrated to be an unequivocally connected with competitors’ degree of fulfillment with their mentor (Gomes, Sousa, Cruz, 2006). It tends to be contended that a noteworthy restriction of every one of these models is that they neglect to consider the non-social parts of the mentor competitor relationship (for example considerations and feelings) which may likewise be significance influencers of the adequacy and accomplishment of this relationship. The 3Cs and Co-direction models The Closeness, Commitment and Complementarity (3Cs) applied model created by Jowett and partners consolidates both conduct and non-social segments of the mentor competitor dyad, and mirrors the social parts of feelings, insights and practices, individually (Jowett, 2002; Jowett, 2003; Jowett and Cockerill, 2002; Jowett and Meek, 2000). An extra relational build, co-direction, has likewise been assessed and is incorporated into the Co-direction model (Jowett, 2006; Jowett and Clark-Carter, 2006). This includes another measurement by considering mentors’ and competitors’ discernments about one another from three unique perspectives: genuine comparability, accepted likeness and empathic getting (Jowett, 2005). Both the 3Cs and Co-direction models have been significant in late research examining the idea of the mentor competitor dyad from the point of view of the competitor in individual games including swimming (Philippe and Seiler, 2006; Poczwardowski, Barott, Jowett, 2006). Breaking down the idea of the mentor competitor relationship Notwithstanding their very own viewpoint on the mentor competitor relationship, the two individuals from the dyad will likewise frame impression of how the other part sees the relationship. Laing and partners (1966) first proposed the terms ‘direct point of view’ (for example the person’s own viewpoint) and ‘meta-point of view’ (the person’s impression of the other dyad part’s viewpoint). All the more as of late, Kenny and Acitelli (2001) built up a technique for estimating the exactness of these discernments (Kenny and Acitelli, 2001). An examination utilizing this approach has explored empathic exactness and accepted comparability in impression of closeness, duty and complementarity in the mentor competitor relationship (Jowett and Clark-Carter, 2006). Discoveries demonstrated that empathic exactness and expected comparability were clear in both mentor and competitor discernments; in any case, competitors were progressively precise in recognizing their mentors emotions as far as closeness, while in fresher connections, the two individuals indicated more elevated amounts of empathic precision. Correspondence is another significant segment of the mentor competitor dyad (Jowett, 2003; Phillipe and Seiler, 2006). Studies have shown that powerful correspondence advances a common comprehension of the significance of key issues between both dyad individuals and may along these lines diminish the probability of issues or struggle happening inside the relationship The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) is a self-report instrument created to investigate the idea of the mentor competitor relationship by inspecting closeness, responsibility and complementarity from a meta-point of view (Jowett and Ntoumanis, 2004). The legitimacy, interior consistency and unwavering quality of this poll were shown in two autonomous examples of British mentors competitor dyads. All the more as of late, a Greek language variant of the survey (GrCART-Q) has been grown, together with an adjusted form joining co-direction (Jowett, 2006). The legitimacy and unwavering quality of the two forms of this survey were affirmed in an example of mentor competitor dyads from individual games (Jowett, 2006). Powerful versus fruitful mentor competitor connections When considering the idea of the mentor competitor dyad, it is imperative to recognize compelling and effective connections. Successful connections are supported by qualities, for example, sympathy, support, acknowledgment, regard and responsiveness (Jowett and Cockerill, 2003; Jowett and Meek, 2000). While these without a doubt give positive psychosocial advantages to the competitor, they won’t really improve execution. Conversely, fruitful connections are ones in which a proportion of execution achievement has been accomplished, in spite of the fact that these may not generally be compelling in nature (Jowett, 2005). The impact of noteworthy others on the mentor competitor relationship It has been recommended that the mentor competitor relationship ought not be considered exclusively as two individuals from the dyad cooperating, yet additionally ought to likewise assess the impact of huge others. For instance, some accept that mentor administration might be a common capacity as opposed to a job taken on by the mentor alone (Jowett, 2005; Jowett and Chaundy, 2004) while on account of kids, guardians and other relatives may assume a significant job in the improvement and achievement of the competitor (Cheng, Marsh, Dowson, Martin, n.d.). To close, there is an impressive group of writing researching the nature and elements of the mentor competitor dyad and those elements which may impact the improvement, viability and achievement of this significant relationship. References Chelladurai, P. (1993). Authority. In R. N. Artist, M. Murphy, and L. K. Tennant (Eds.) Handbook on research on game brain research. New York: MacMillan. Cheng, J. H. S., Marsh, H. W., Dowson, M. and Martin, A. J. (n.d.) Exploring the impact of relationship elements of help on gymnasts’ and figure skaters’ self-idea, instruction and mental versatility: an exploration proposition. Recovered 5 July, 2008 from http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/che05309.pdf Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Trudel, P., Baria, A. and Russell, S. (1995). The training model: A grounded appraisal of master gymnastic trainers information. Diary of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 1â17. Gomes, A. R., Sousa, S. A. and Cruz, J. F. (2006). Appealling, trnasformational and visionary measurements in game administration: towards new ways for the investigation of mentor competitors connections. In N. S. Huber and M. Harvey (Eds.). Authority at the junction. College of Maryland: The James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership. Jowett, S. and Cockerill, I. M. (2002). Contradiction in the mentor competitor relationship. In I. M. Cockerill (Ed.) Solutions in Sport Psychology. London: Thomson Learning. Jowett, S. and Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medallists viewpoint of the competitor mentor relationship. Brain research of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313â31. Jowett, S. and Chaundy, V. (2004). An examination concerning the effect of mentor initiative and mentor competitor relationship on gathering grip. Gathering Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 8, 302â11. Jowett, S. and Clark-Carter, D. (2006). Impression of empathic precision and accepted likeness in the mentor competitor relationship’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 617-37. Jowett, S. and Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q): advancement and starting approval. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 14, 245â57. Jowett, S. (2002). The mentor competitor survey and dyad maps (Research Monograph No. 1). Staffordshire: School of Health, Staffordshire University. Jowett, S. (2003). At the point when the ‘special night’ is more than: a contextual investigation of a mentor competitor dyad in emergency. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 444â60. Jowett, S. (2005). The mentor competitor association. The Psychologist, 18, 412â5. Jowett, S. (2006,). Relational and basic highlights of Greek mentor competitor dyads performing in individual games. Diary of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 69â81. Jowett, S. and Cockerill, I. M. (2002). Contrariness in the co>
