How to build a marketing strategy course: a complete guide for lecturers

Central question: What makes marketing strategic rather than a collection of campaigns and tactics?

Open by separating marketing strategy from the marketing communications calendar. Students need a line of sight from customer value and market choice to competitive advantage, resource allocation and measurable business outcomes. This is the anchor concept because every later framework should improve a real choice rather than become a checklist.

What this concept covers

• Market orientation and customer value as foundations of strategy.
• Marketing strategy as choices about where to compete and how to win.
• Links between corporate, business and functional strategy.
• Value creation, value capture and customer lifetime logic.
• Strategic trade-offs, resource constraints and opportunity cost.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Distinguish strategic marketing choices from tactical activity.
• Explain how customer value and competitive advantage connect.
• Frame a marketing problem as a decision with alternatives and trade-offs.
• Identify the assumptions that connect marketing actions to business outcomes.

How to teach it

• Ask students to sort ten decisions into strategic, tactical or operational categories.
• Contrast a high-growth acquisition plan with a retention-led value strategy.
• Use a one-page strategy logic map: objective, customer, value proposition, advantage, activity and metric.
• Require every recommendation to state what the firm will not prioritise.

Case-style example

AsterHome has a $6 million annual marketing budget, 210,000 active customers and 31% gross margin. Management can spend $2 million on broad awareness, $2 million on retention for its highest-value 40,000 customers, or hold funds for a new category launch. Students calculate rough contribution implications, choose a priority and defend the trade-off. One team can credibly favour growth while another favours retention. Students discover that marketing strategy starts with resource choices, not channels.

Where students struggle

Students often equate strategy with an ambitious objective or a list of marketing activities. Push them to identify a target customer, a source of advantage, a resource commitment and a measurable consequence.

Reading and a quick check

Use the opening strategy and planning chapters in the core text. Quick check: ask for a 60-second explanation of what the firm will do, for whom, why it should win and what it will stop doing.

Teaching activity

Use a short board memo workshop in which groups choose between three budget allocations and write the explicit trade-off in one sentence.

Where it leads

The next step is to convert strategic intent into objectives, evidence requirements and an executable planning process.

Central question: How should a marketing strategy turn broad ambition into a disciplined sequence of objectives, assumptions and evidence?

A useful marketing plan is a decision architecture, not a long document. Teach students to move from business ambition to marketing objectives, diagnose what must be true, identify evidence gaps and specify the metrics that would confirm or challenge the plan. This keeps later frameworks connected to a clear decision.

What this concept covers

• Situation analysis, objectives, strategy, programmes and control.
• SMART objectives and the hierarchy from business outcomes to marketing metrics.
• Assumptions, evidence standards and decision gates.
• Budget logic, resource allocation and sequencing.
• Feedback loops, test-and-learn and strategy review.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Translate a business goal into assessable marketing objectives.
• Build an evidence plan for a strategic marketing decision.
• Differentiate leading indicators from lagging outcomes.
• Evaluate whether a plan contains clear decision gates and ownership.

How to teach it

• Give students a vague brief such as "grow the brand" and make them rewrite it as a measurable objective.
• Use a strategy-on-a-page template before any longer plan.
• Ask groups to label every claim as fact, assumption or hypothesis.
• Make students specify what evidence would cause them to change course.

Case-style example

Northline Mobile wants to raise annual revenue from $48 million to $58 million while keeping acquisition spending below $7 million. The CMO proposes a 20% awareness target; the CFO wants payback under nine months. Students build an objective hierarchy, identify three missing inputs and design a decision dashboard. One defensible plan prioritises profitable acquisition; another accepts slower payback to enter a higher-value segment. Students discover that objectives can conflict unless the plan makes the hierarchy explicit.

Where students struggle

Students often pick metrics because they are easy to measure. Require a causal explanation linking each metric to a strategic objective and decision.

Reading and a quick check

Use the core text material on planning, implementation and control. Quick check: give five metrics and ask which are objectives, drivers, diagnostics or vanity measures.

Teaching activity

Run an evidence audit: students mark a draft plan with four labels - verified fact, estimate, assumption and unanswered question.

Where it leads

With objectives defined, students can collect and interpret customer and market evidence rather than starting from a preferred solution.

Central question: Which customer evidence should shape the strategy, and how can students distinguish insight from description?

Marketing strategy depends on a defensible view of customers, demand and behaviour. Teach research as a route to a decision, not a methods catalogue. Students should triangulate qualitative and quantitative evidence, diagnose needs and jobs, recognise bias and identify what would change a strategic recommendation.

What this concept covers

• Customer needs, jobs, pains, gains and decision criteria.
• Primary and secondary research, qualitative and quantitative evidence.
• Customer journeys, occasions, contexts and buying centres.
• Market sizing, demand estimation and category behaviour.
• Research bias, sample limits and evidence quality.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Formulate a decision-led market research question.
• Triangulate customer evidence from multiple sources.
• Estimate demand using transparent assumptions.
• Evaluate the reliability and strategic relevance of customer insight.

How to teach it

• Give three conflicting evidence sources and ask which should carry most weight.
• Use a compact customer interview coding exercise.
• Make students estimate a market using both top-down and bottom-up approaches.
• Ask for an insight statement that includes evidence, implication and uncertainty.

Case-style example

Orbit Learning is considering a premium analytics course. A survey of 1,200 newsletter subscribers shows 42% purchase interest, but only 18 of 40 interviewees say they would pay above $400. Website data show 9,000 monthly visitors and a 2.6% paid-course conversion rate. Students estimate a credible demand range and recommend whether to launch research, pilot or scale. Both cautious and optimistic conclusions are defensible. Students discover that stated interest and revealed behaviour answer different questions.

Where students struggle

Students confuse a customer fact with an insight. A useful insight explains why the fact matters for a choice and what the team should investigate or change.

Reading and a quick check

Assign recent work on customer journeys and insight generation. Quick check: ask students to rewrite a descriptive observation as an evidence-backed strategic implication.

Teaching activity

Use a customer-evidence triangulation workshop with interview notes, web data and survey results, ending in a one-page recommendation.

Where it leads

Customer evidence is only one layer of the situation. Students next widen the lens to the macro environment.

Central question: Which external forces are material enough to alter a marketing strategy, and how should students weight them?

PESTLE is useful when it is selective. Teach students to identify political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental forces, then judge materiality, direction, timing and uncertainty. The output should be a market decision or scenario implication, not six descriptive lists.

What this concept covers

• Political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental factors.
• Materiality, probability, timing and strategic impact.
• Scenario construction and leading indicators.
• Country and category differences.
• Implications for demand, proposition, pricing, channels and communications.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Identify material macro-environment factors for a defined marketing decision.
• Weight external factors using transparent criteria.
• Translate PESTLE evidence into market-entry or adaptation implications.
• Design indicators that signal when assumptions are changing.

How to teach it

• Set one market-entry decision before students begin the scan.
• Make teams rank only the top six external issues by materiality.
• Require factor weights to total 100% and force explicit prioritisation.
• End with a recommendation and two conditions that would reverse it.

Case-style example

Vela Foods is considering a UK launch of a plant-based ready-meal line at a £6.50 shelf price. Food inflation is 3.8%, a packaging rule may add 4p per unit, category volume is down 2%, and 58% of surveyed target shoppers say health matters more than sustainability. Students weight six PESTLE factors and choose launch, adapt or delay. Different weights support different conclusions. Students discover that environmental scanning matters only when it changes the decision.

Where students struggle

The common failure is completeness without prioritisation. Limit the number of factors and insist on weights, evidence and consequences.

Reading and a quick check

Use current official or industry evidence alongside the core text. Quick check: ask which PESTLE factor would change price, proposition or channel first and why.

Where a simulation fits

PESTLE Analysis Simulation: Place the PESTLE Analysis Simulation after students know the six categories. Its role-based market-entry decision forces teams to score, weight and justify external factors before reconciling Growth Strategy and Risk Management perspectives in an Approval Committee.

Where it leads

Macro conditions set constraints, but students still need to understand the economics and competitive structure of the industry.

Central question: Is the industry structurally attractive, and where can a marketing strategy defend or improve the firm's position?

Five Forces should move beyond naming competitors. Teach students to analyse buyer power, supplier power, rivalry, substitutes and entry threat as structural pressures on value capture. Then connect those pressures to positioning, customer choice, pricing power, channel design and market-entry recommendations.

What this concept covers

• Rivalry, buyer power, supplier power, substitutes and threat of entry.
• Industry boundaries and the level of analysis.
• Structural attractiveness versus company capability.
• Strategic groups, competitor moves and response.
• Implications for differentiation, pricing, channels and entry.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Define a relevant industry boundary for a marketing decision.
• Assess each force using evidence rather than labels.
• Explain how structural forces affect margins and customer value.
• Defend a market-entry or competitive-positioning recommendation.

How to teach it

• Begin by debating the industry boundary before scoring any force.
• Require a 1-10 force score and one evidence sentence per score.
• Ask students to separate industry attractiveness from firm-specific advantage.
• Finish with one action to reduce exposure to the strongest force.

Case-style example

BrewSphere is evaluating entry into a premium urban cafe market. Average gross margin is 67%, the top three chains control 54% of locations, landlords have raised prime rents 11%, and app-based loyalty means 46% of category purchases sit inside brand ecosystems. Students score the five forces, decide Go, Conditional Go or Reject, and propose one defence. Both conditional entry and rejection can be justified. Students discover that market growth does not automatically mean attractive economics.

Where students struggle

Students often score forces from intuition or confuse a strong competitor with high rivalry. Make every score traceable to evidence and a profit mechanism.

Reading and a quick check

Use the core text on competitive advantage, then a current category source. Quick check: ask which force most constrains value capture and what marketing action could weaken it.

Where a simulation fits

Porter's Five Forces Simulation: Use the Porter's Five Forces Simulation after the framework is taught. Students analyse the same market in Growth and Risk roles, score forces, explain reasoning and defend a Go, Conditional Go or Reject recommendation in an investment-style committee.

Where it leads

Industry analysis identifies structural pressures. The next concept combines external opportunities and threats with internal capabilities.

Central question: How can SWOT become a choice-making tool rather than four boxes of observations?

SWOT is strongest after customer, macro and industry analysis. Teach students to use it as synthesis: only evidence-backed factors belong in the grid, and the real work is matching strengths to opportunities, correcting weaknesses that block the strategy and deciding which threats materially change priorities.

What this concept covers

• Internal strengths and weaknesses grounded in capabilities and resources.
• External opportunities and threats grounded in prior analysis.
• Materiality, controllability and strategic fit.
• TOWS-style matching and prioritisation.
• From diagnosis to strategic options and decision criteria.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Build an evidence-backed SWOT from prior analysis.
• Separate internal from external factors consistently.
• Prioritise factors by impact and strategic relevance.
• Convert SWOT into a small set of strategic options.

How to teach it

• Ban vague factors such as "strong brand" unless students provide evidence.
• Ask teams to rank the top two items in each quadrant.
• Use a TOWS matrix to generate competing options.
• Require a short recommendation that names the discarded option.

Case-style example

NovaCare Clinics has 72% aided awareness in its home region, NPS of 48, digital booking at 26% of appointments and operating capacity at 91%. A new entrant is offering app-first consultations at 20% lower price while regulation is opening remote prescribing. Students build a prioritised SWOT and choose defend premium service, accelerate digital access or expand geographically. Two paths are defensible. Students discover that SWOT only earns value when it narrows options.

Where students struggle

Students often repeat the same factor in multiple quadrants or include aspirations as strengths. Ask whether the factor is internal, evidenced and decision-relevant.

Reading and a quick check

Use the core text on strategic focus. Quick check: give eight statements and ask students to classify, evidence and rank them before proposing one strategic option.

Where a simulation fits

SWOT Analysis Simulation: Use the SWOT Analysis Simulation after environmental and competitive analysis so students have evidence to diagnose. The executive-role format turns the grid into an expansion decision under changing information rather than a descriptive exercise.

Where it leads

Diagnosis now creates a set of plausible options. Students next decide which customers and markets deserve focus.

Central question: Which customers should the firm prioritise, and what makes a segment strategically attractive?

Segmentation, targeting and positioning sit at the centre of Marketing Strategy. Teach segmentation as a search for economically and behaviourally meaningful differences, not demographic decoration. Targeting then becomes a resource-allocation choice that balances size, fit, access, profitability and strategic defensibility.

What this concept covers

• Segmentation bases in consumer and B2B markets.
• Segment measurability, accessibility, responsiveness and economic value.
• Targeting strategies: concentrated, differentiated and selective focus.
• Market attractiveness versus firm fit.
• Personas as synthesis tools, not substitutes for evidence.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Construct actionable segments from relevant variables.
• Evaluate target segments using explicit criteria.
• Estimate the economic consequences of target selection.
• Defend a focused target while explaining who is deprioritised.

How to teach it

• Give a dataset with five customer groups and force a two-segment budget choice.
• Ask students to distinguish variables used to describe from variables used to predict response.
• Require target scoring on attractiveness and strategic fit.
• Make teams state why the rejected segment is less compelling.

Case-style example

PulsePay can spend £1.2 million to acquire UK small-business customers. Segment A has 90,000 firms, £420 average annual revenue and 70% gross margin; Segment B has 24,000 firms, £1,600 revenue and 58% margin; Segment C has 210,000 firms but double the service cost. Students calculate rough value pools, score fit and choose one primary target. Different assumptions can support A or B. Students discover that the largest segment is not automatically the best target.

Where students struggle

Students often segment by what data are available rather than what predicts needs, willingness to pay or response. Make them justify the behavioural logic of every segment.

Reading and a quick check

Use the core and alternative texts on segmentation and targeting. Quick check: ask which variable would most change the target decision if new evidence became available.

Where a simulation fits

Go To Market Simulation: The Go To Market Simulation can begin here as a preparatory exercise because teams use STP to analyse customer groups and select a focused market entry. The main placement is later, once positioning and marketing-mix choices are also taught.

Where it leads

Once a target is chosen, the firm needs a differentiated promise that customers can recognise and believe.

Central question: Why should the chosen customer prefer this offer, and what evidence makes that position credible?

Positioning is a strategic choice about the place a brand or offer seeks to occupy relative to alternatives. Teach students to connect customer need, competitive frame, points of difference, reasons to believe and economic value. A slogan is an executional expression, not the position itself.

What this concept covers

• Value proposition architecture and customer jobs.
• Competitive frame of reference and category cues.
• Points of parity, points of difference and reasons to believe.
• Perceptual mapping and positioning gaps.
• Positioning statements, brand promise and evidence.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Construct a differentiated value proposition for a defined target.
• Evaluate whether a proposed position is relevant, distinctive and credible.
• Use competitor evidence to identify positioning space.
• Translate positioning into execution principles without reducing it to a tagline.

How to teach it

• Give four competitor propositions and ask what each is really competing on.
• Build a two-axis perceptual map, then challenge whether the chosen axes matter to customers.
• Require a positioning statement and three proof points.
• Test the position against a price or competitor response scenario.

Case-style example

LumaSkin is launching a moisturiser for urban professionals. Competitor A sells at £18 with dermatologist credentials; Competitor B sells at £32 around sustainability; LumaSkin can price at £24 and has clinical data showing 18% better hydration after eight hours, but only 9% unaided awareness. Students choose a frame, position and proof strategy. Premium-science and accessible-performance positions are both defensible. Students discover that differentiation must be valuable and believable, not merely different.

Where students struggle

Students jump from target segment to a creative message. Make them specify the competitive frame and evidence before writing any campaign copy.

Reading and a quick check

Use the texts on positioning and brand strategy. Quick check: ask students to remove the brand name from a positioning statement and see whether it still describes a unique choice.

Where a simulation fits

Go To Market Simulation: This is a strong preparation point for the Go To Market Simulation because teams must connect target selection to pricing, messaging, proof strategy and brand focus rather than treating each element separately.

Where it leads

Positioning gives direction, but the offer and portfolio must still deliver the promised value and support growth.

Central question: How should a firm grow while protecting the value and coherence of its offer and brand portfolio?

This concept links market choice to product, brand and growth decisions. Students should evaluate whether growth comes from penetration, market development, product development, innovation, partnerships or portfolio expansion, and whether the brand has permission and operational capability to stretch.

What this concept covers

• Product-market growth choices and portfolio prioritisation.
• Brand equity, architecture, extensions and portfolio roles.
• Innovation adoption and launch sequencing.
• Customer retention, penetration and share-of-wallet growth.
• Cannibalisation, complexity and strategic fit.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Compare alternative routes to growth.
• Evaluate a brand extension using customer, competitive and economic evidence.
• Assess cannibalisation and portfolio trade-offs.
• Recommend a growth path with explicit assumptions and risks.

How to teach it

• Use an Ansoff-style growth matrix but require evidence for each option.
• Give a portfolio with limited investment and force a keep, grow or exit choice.
• Estimate incremental revenue and cannibalisation for a new offer.
• Ask whether the brand has permission to stretch into the proposed category.

Case-style example

FILA Nova, a fictional sportswear sub-brand, has £140 million revenue, 12% category share in lifestyle trainers and 4% in performance running. Management can invest £8 million in deeper lifestyle penetration or £11 million to enter technical running, where expected gross margin is 6 points higher but awareness is only 17%. Students model a simple three-year upside and recommend focus or extension. Both routes can win under different adoption assumptions. Students discover that growth and brand coherence can pull in opposite directions.

Where students struggle

Students often prefer the option with the biggest market. Ask whether the firm has capabilities, credibility, economics and channel access to win there.

Reading and a quick check

Use recent work on customer insight and innovation alongside the core text. Quick check: ask students to name the growth mechanism, required capability and main cannibalisation risk.

Teaching activity

Run a portfolio allocation workshop in which teams distribute a fixed budget across penetration, extension and new-market options and justify the rejected investment.

Where it leads

Growth choices must be translated into a viable economic model, route to market and customer experience.

Central question: How should the firm capture value and reach customers without undermining positioning or unit economics?

Price and channel are strategic because they shape value capture, accessibility, partner power and brand experience. Teach them together where possible. Students should connect willingness to pay, cost-to-serve, margin, channel economics and strategic control to a coherent route-to-market decision.

What this concept covers

• Value-based, cost-based and competition-based pricing logic.
• Price architecture, fences, discounting and willingness to pay.
• Direct, indirect, retail, marketplace and hybrid channel models.
• Channel conflict, margins, incentives and power.
• Unit economics, cost-to-serve and route-to-market control.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Evaluate pricing options using customer and economic evidence.
• Calculate basic channel margin and cost-to-serve implications.
• Compare direct and partner-led routes to market.
• Recommend a pricing and channel model consistent with positioning.

How to teach it

• Give three price points and a simple demand response.
• Build a channel economics bridge from list price to net revenue and contribution.
• Debate DTC control versus partner reach.
• Ask what discounting would teach customers about future willingness to pay.

Case-style example

MiraHome sells a smart thermostat with unit cost of £72. DTC at £219 yields £32 fulfilment and service cost per order; a retailer wants a 38% margin but can triple reach. A £199 launch price is forecast to increase unit demand 28%, while £239 protects premium positioning. Students compare contribution under four price-channel combinations and recommend a route. Retail-led scale and DTC margin can both be justified. Students discover that price and channel cannot be optimised independently.

Where students struggle

Students focus on revenue and ignore net price, channel margin or cost-to-serve. Require a contribution view before approving a route.

Reading and a quick check

Use the alternative text on pricing and channels. Quick check: ask which proposed route creates the greatest strategic dependency and what the firm gets in return.

Where a simulation fits

Go To Market Simulation: The Go To Market Simulation fits after pricing, proof and channel choices are introduced because teams must combine target, positioning and route-to-market decisions under a changing market scenario.

Where it leads

The firm now has a target, proposition, offer and route. Students next decide how communications and customer journeys reinforce the strategy.

Central question: How should communications and touchpoints work together to move the target customer through a coherent journey?

Integrated marketing communications should be taught as orchestration around a strategy, not a channel catalogue. Students need to identify the role of each touchpoint, the information or reassurance required at different journey stages, and how content, sales, service and digital experiences reinforce positioning.

What this concept covers

• Customer journey stages, touchpoints and moments of truth.
• Communication objectives, message hierarchy and channel roles.
• Paid, owned, earned and sales-enabled touchpoints.
• B2B and B2C journey differences.
• Engagement, first-party data, privacy and relationship building.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Map a customer journey and identify strategic friction points.
• Assign clear roles to communication channels.
• Evaluate whether messages reinforce the positioning.
• Design an integrated communications sequence with measurable objectives.

How to teach it

• Map a real or fictional purchase journey from trigger to retention.
• Give a fixed budget and force channel-role choices.
• Ask students to identify one point where sales, product or service matters more than advertising.
• Use a message hierarchy rather than a list of campaign ideas.

Case-style example

CloudDesk sells collaboration software to firms with 200-1,000 employees. Website conversion is 3.1%, demo-to-proposal is 34% and proposal-to-close is 22%. Content drives 55% of first touches, while partner referrals close twice as often but at lower volume. Students redesign the journey with a £450,000 quarter budget and choose where to remove friction. Content-led scale and partner-led quality can support different strategies. Students discover that journey performance depends on handoffs, not just media reach.

Where students struggle

Students over-allocate attention to awareness channels. Make them diagnose the bottleneck and assign each touchpoint a job.

Reading and a quick check

Assign recent research on digital customer journeys and timely content delivery. Quick check: ask which journey metric is the constraint and which intervention should move it.

Teaching activity

Use a journey redesign studio with conversion data, customer objections and channel costs, ending in a one-page integrated communications plan.

Where it leads

The final concept combines the prior choices into a launch or growth plan and asks how to measure, adapt and govern it responsibly.

Central question: How should a marketing strategy be launched, measured and adapted when conditions change and AI accelerates analysis and execution?

Close the course by integrating the strategy into a go-to-market plan with ownership, sequencing, metrics and decision rules. This is also the right place to address AI: students can use tools to accelerate research, scenario generation and drafting, but marks should rest on evidence quality, assumptions, trade-offs, responsible use and defensible judgement.

What this concept covers

• Go-to-market sequencing, launch readiness and cross-functional ownership.
• Objectives, funnel and financial metrics, experiments and dashboards.
• Scenario response, learning loops and strategy adaptation.
• Generative AI for research, synthesis, content and scenario support.
• Academic integrity, privacy, bias, provenance and responsible marketing.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Build a coherent go-to-market plan from earlier strategic choices.
• Select metrics and decision rules that test the strategy.
• Adapt a plan when market conditions change.
• Evaluate AI-supported work for evidence quality, bias and accountability.
• Defend a final marketing strategy under challenge.

How to teach it

• Use a launch-readiness checklist linked to the prior strategy, not generic project management.
• Require three leading indicators and three outcome metrics.
• Introduce a market shock after teams commit to a plan.
• Use oral defence to test which assumptions were made by the student team.

Case-style example

ArcRide plans to launch an e-bike subscription in Manchester with a £900,000 first-year marketing budget. Its base case assumes 4,000 subscribers, £58 monthly revenue, 72% year-one retention and £165 acquisition cost. A competitor then cuts price 15% and city-centre parking rules change. Students revise the GTM plan, dashboard and contingency triggers. Hold-price differentiation and selective price response are both defensible. Students discover that execution quality includes knowing when to change the strategy.

Where students struggle

Students treat implementation as a project plan after strategy is complete. Make them show how metrics, ownership and feedback can invalidate or strengthen the original assumptions.

Reading and a quick check

Assign the recent JAMS papers on generative AI in marketing plus the core text on implementation and control. Quick check: ask students what evidence would make them stop, scale or redesign the plan.

Where a simulation fits

Go To Market Simulation: Use the Go To Market Simulation as the course capstone or main applied exercise. Teams use STP, pricing, messaging, proof and brand choices, then see how a market scenario changes the quality of the original strategy.

Where it leads

This closes the course with an integrated, defensible marketing strategy and a clear evidence trail for assessment.

10-week course structure

A 10-week course should compress the lifecycle without deleting the choices that make Marketing Strategy strategic. Combine foundations and planning, integrate SWOT with STP, and use the Go To Market Simulation as the main applied integration point.

14-week course structure

A 14-week version creates room to separate customer insight from journeys, pricing from channels, and final simulation work from AI and assessment defence. Use the extra time for deeper evidence work and debrief rather than simply adding more frameworks.

The Go To Market Simulation places teams into a market-entry and launch decision where segmentation, targeting and positioning must be translated into commercial choices. Students analyse customer groups, select a focused entry, position the offer through pricing, messaging, proof strategy and brand focus, then see how the quality of those decisions holds up when the market context changes.

Why it fits here

By Session 11, students already hold STP, positioning, product, pricing and route-to-market concepts. The simulation therefore tests integration rather than framework recall. It is particularly useful for showing that a strong target choice can still fail if the proposition, proof or price is inconsistent.

What students do

• Analyse customer groups and identify the segment that best fits the strategic objective.
• Choose a focused market-entry approach rather than spreading resources across every segment.
• Set positioning choices through price, messaging, proof strategy and brand focus.
• Make the decisions as a team and explain the assumptions behind the go-to-market logic.
• Respond to a market scenario twist such as booming demand, intense competition or a downturn, then reconsider which choices remain defensible.
• Use the debrief to separate a good outcome from a good decision process.

Recommended course placement

• At the end of Session 11 after STP, positioning, pricing and route-to-market teaching.
• Across Sessions 10-11 if you want a separate preparation phase and deeper debrief.
• Before the final strategy defence so teams can use the simulation to test assumptions.
• As a capstone applied exercise for a 10-session intensive version.

Knowledge students should have before the simulation

• Segmentation, targeting and positioning.
• Value proposition and reasons to believe.
• Basic pricing and channel logic.
• How marketing choices connect to customer and business outcomes.
• How to defend assumptions rather than treating a framework as the answer.

Delivery format

Suggested debrief questions

• Which assumption most influenced your target choice?
• Where did your positioning, price or proof strategy reinforce each other, and where did they conflict?
• What changed when the market scenario shifted?
• Did the team optimise for reach, profitability, differentiation or resilience?
• Which decision would you reverse if you had one new piece of evidence?
• How would you convert the simulation into a board-ready go-to-market recommendation?

The Porter's Five Forces Simulation places students in BrewSphere's unresolved decision about entering the U.S. premium cafe market. Growth and Risk teams use the same briefing but approach the market from different priorities, score each force, explain their reasoning and then defend a Go, Conditional Go or Reject recommendation in a committee setting.

Why it fits here

Students already know the five forces, so the exercise can focus on industry boundaries, evidence, scoring, disagreement and strategic consequence. It turns an industry-analysis diagram into a decision about whether the market is attractive enough and what conditions would make entry defensible.

What students do

• Review the market briefing and define how the relevant cafe industry should be bounded.
• Assess rivalry, buyer power, supplier power, substitutes and the threat of new entry.
• Assign each force a 1-10 score and write the reasoning behind the score.
• Compare how Growth and Risk roles interpret the same evidence and identify which disagreement is material.
• Meet in the committee phase and decide Go, Conditional Go or Reject.
• Reflect on which structural force most affected the recommendation and what a marketing strategy could do to reduce exposure.

Recommended course placement

• At the end of Session 5 after a worked Five Forces example.
• Inside a 2-4 hour strategy workshop with a separate debrief.
• Before SWOT so the external threats and opportunities are evidence-backed.
• As an assessed applied exercise paired with a short individual market-entry defence.

Knowledge students should have before the simulation

• The purpose and definition of all five forces.
• How industry structure affects value capture and margins.
• The difference between industry attractiveness and firm capability.
• Basic market-entry and competitive-positioning logic.

Delivery format

Suggested debrief questions

• Which force did teams disagree about most, and why?
• Did your industry boundary make the market look more or less attractive?
• Which score was least well evidenced?
• What condition changed a Reject into a Conditional Go, or vice versa?
• Which marketing action could reduce exposure to the strongest force?
• How should the analysis feed the SWOT and target-market decision that follows?

Simulation evidence is most useful when it feeds a transparent lecturer-designed rubric. Do not grade the winning team automatically. Use decisions, written reasoning, comparative outcomes and debrief evidence to test whether students can apply concepts, justify trade-offs and respond to new information. For individual marks, add a short defence, assumptions note or reflection.

Grading with the Go To Market Simulation

Students combine STP with pricing, messaging, proof and brand focus, then respond to a changing market scenario.

• Quality of target-market selection and evidence.
• Coherence between position, price, message and proof.
• Explicit trade-offs and rejected alternatives.
• Response to the market scenario and what the team changed.
• Individual ability to defend assumptions in a follow-up note or viva.

Grading with the SWOT Analysis Simulation

Students use internal and external evidence from an executive perspective to make and revise an expansion decision.

• Evidence quality behind strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
• Prioritisation rather than framework completeness.
• Conversion of diagnosis into a strategic option.
• Response to new information and executive-role trade-offs.
• Individual reflection on which factor materially changed the decision.

Grading with the Porter's Five Forces Simulation

Growth and Risk teams analyse BrewSphere's U.S. premium cafe market entry, score the five forces and defend a Go, Conditional Go or Reject decision.

• Quality and consistency of force scores.
• Written reasoning and use of market evidence.
• Industry-boundary logic.
• Committee recommendation and conditions attached to it.
• Individual defence of the strongest and weakest parts of the analysis.

Grading with the PESTLE Analysis Simulation

Growth Strategy and Risk Management teams assess six external dimensions, weight them and reconcile a final market-entry recommendation.

• Factor materiality and evidence.
• Weights that total 100% and reflect genuine prioritisation.
• Written rationale connecting each factor to the decision.
• Quality of reconciliation in the Approval Committee.
• Individual explanation of what evidence would reverse the recommendation.

The platform evidence supports your academic judgement; it does not replace it and does not establish which individual student made which argument. Build moderation around the rubric and the individual evidence, and follow local policy for peer evaluation or mark adjustment where free-riding is material.