| Course | MT359 Integrated Marketing Communications |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Evaluation plan |
| Length | About 950 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT359 Unit 9
Every Tool Its Own Yardstick: An MT359 Unit 9 Evaluation Plan Built on the Lavidge and Steiner Hierarchy
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT359: Integrated Marketing Communications
Unit 9 Evaluation Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The tamale company, targets and survey figures are composite; the models and research cited are real.
Objectives as the Plan Will Test Them
Three survey objectives come from the campaign, each with a starting figure, a target and a date. Recognition: the share of San Antonio-area adults between 25 and 54 who pick out the yellow Nogalitos bag from a photograph rises from 31 to 45 percent by April 2027. Association: the share who link spread by hand to Nogalitos when shown the phrase rises from 12 to 25 percent. Preference: the share who say they would choose Nogalitos over the national leader at a stated $2.00 premium rises from 18 to 26 percent. Two behavioral objectives come from shopper-card data: household penetration in the chain's stores, and twelve-week repeat among households buying the brand for the first time.
Six Rungs, Five Tools
Lavidge and Steiner (1961) described advertising as moving buyers up a series of steps: awareness, knowledge, liking, preference, conviction and purchase. The plan uses those rungs as the rows of a measurement grid and the five communication tools as its columns. The logic of the grid is that no tool is asked to prove something it cannot move.
Advertising owns awareness and knowledge, measured by the photograph recognition test and the association question. Publicity supports knowledge and liking and is measured by pull-through: the share of placements using spread by hand or describing the process. The Lent promotion owns purchase timing and is read from shopper-card data, comparing purchases in the six Lent weeks with the same weeks of 2026, adjusted for the change in Easter's date. Personal selling owns distribution and is measured by new store listings and freezer facings gained. Direct contact is measured by the response to a code printed only on the postcards and in the emails.
Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) reviewed decades of research and found little support for a fixed order of effects; buyers of low-involvement products often try first and form attitudes after. The plan therefore uses the hierarchy to assign measures to tools, not to predict that buyers will climb the rungs in sequence.
No tool is graded on a rung it cannot reach: publicity is not judged on sales, and the sales calls are not judged on awareness.
A Photograph Instead of a Question
Recall questions, such as asking respondents to name frozen tamale brands, would test the wrong skill. Unit 4 established that this product is chosen on sight, so the survey shows five bags as they appear in a freezer case, including the national leader, two store brands and a decoy, and asks respondents to point to any they know. Romaniuk and Sharp (2004) argue that a brand's chance of being thought of or noticed in a buying situation matters more than general awareness, and the photograph mirrors that buying situation.
Margins Stated Before the Waves
Each wave interviews 400 adults, in early November 2026 and early April 2027, with the same questions in the same order. The plan states, before any data arrive, how large a change must be to read as real at the 95 percent level. For recognition, a rise from 31 to 45 percent must exceed a margin of about 6.7 points, and the 14-point target does. For association, 12 to 25 percent against a margin of about 5.3 points. For preference, 18 to 26 percent against about 5.7. Each target was set to clear its margin on purpose, a choice the plan records in a footnote, so no one discovers after April that a celebrated change was within the noise.
Shopper Cards for What Surveys Miss
Surveys capture what people say. The chain's loyalty data show what they did. The plan requests two figures from the chain at the end of each flight: household penetration, the share of card households that bought Nogalitos at least once, and twelve-week repeat, the share of first-time buyers who bought again. These show whether recognition turned into buying, which a survey answer about intention cannot confirm.
Sales, Labeled Context
Case shipments and scanned sales are reported every month but carry no target. Too much else moves them: a competitor's price cut, a hard freeze that keeps shoppers home, the date of Lent, which shifts by several weeks from year to year, and the chain's own decisions about displays. Grading the campaign on sales would credit or blame it for things it did not cause.
What Would Count as Failure
A plan that only defines success invites a generous reading of the results. This one defines failure as well. If recognition rises but association does not, the advertising made the bag familiar without attaching the hand-spreading idea, and the next campaign should show the fold more and the bag less. If association rises but twelve-week repeat falls, shoppers believed the story and did not like the product enough to return, which is a product question rather than a communication one. If pull-through is high but association does not move, the coverage reached people outside the survey's audience. Each pattern points to a different fix, which is why the measures are kept separate rather than combined into a single score.
Reporting Calendar
Results from the November wave are reported by November 20, 2026, as the baseline. Christmas flight shopper-card figures follow in mid-January. Lent figures and the April wave are reported together by April 30, 2027, with each objective marked met, not met or within the margin.
References
Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 59-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224296102500611
Romaniuk, J., & Sharp, B. (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring brand salience. Marketing Theory, 4(4), 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593104047643
Vakratsas, D., & Ambler, T. (1999). How advertising works: What do we really know? Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 26-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299906300103
MT359 Unit 9 instructions, in plain terms
In Unit 9 students write an evaluation plan for the campaign. Objectives should be restated with a baseline, a target and a date, in a form the plan can actually test. Instructors expect each communication tool to be assigned a measure it can reasonably move, often through a hierarchy-of-effects model. Survey designs need sample sizes and a stated margin for each change, so results can be judged against noise. Where the scenario allows, behavioral data such as loyalty-card or scanner records should supplement surveys. Sales usually appear but with an explanation of what else moves them. A reporting calendar showing when each result is due is a common requirement, along with what each result would mean.
Inside the MT359 Unit 9 example
Three survey objectives and two behavioral ones open the sample. The grid follows, with Lavidge and Steiner's rungs as rows and the tools as columns, each tool matched to its measure and Vakratsas and Ambler cited as a caution against reading the rungs as a sequence. A highlighted line states that no tool is graded on a rung it cannot reach. The photograph test is explained and linked to Unit 4, with Romaniuk and Sharp on noticing brands in buying situations. Margins for each target are computed for 400 interviews. Shopper-card measures follow, then the reasons sales stay ungraded. A section on what would count as failure maps each pattern of results to a fix, before the reporting calendar.
Reading the MT359 Unit 9 grading rubric
Evaluation plans tend to be graded on the testability of objectives, the fit between tools and measures, statistical care and the usefulness of results for decisions. Objectives with baselines, targets and dates earn more than aspirations. Rubrics reward plans that refuse to judge a tool on outcomes it cannot influence. A margin stated before data arrive shows statistical literacy. Behavioral measures alongside surveys show the plan checks whether attitudes became purchases. Treating sales as context, with reasons, shows awareness of outside influences. Defining failure patterns and what each would mean demonstrates that results will be used, not just reported. Models are applied, not defined, and cited in APA 7.
MT359 Unit 9 help from the desk
Evaluation plans often grade the whole campaign on sales, which credits or blames it for weather, competitors and the calendar. Another pattern assigns every measure to every tool, so nothing can be learned about any one of them. Survey targets frequently appear without sample sizes, leaving no way to tell a real change from noise. Recall questions are used for products chosen on sight. Plans also tend to define success and never failure. Before setting a target, compute the margin your sample allows for that change. If the target is smaller than the margin, raise the sample, lower your expectations or say openly that the result will be inconclusive.
Get an MT359 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Copy the objectives your campaign set and list the tools it uses; the Unit 9 assignment sheet and its rubric finish the request. Due within 24-48h, an evaluation plan, free as a first sample, gives each tool its own measure and deadline, states a margin for every survey change, and reports sales as context rather than as the verdict. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT359 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT359 Unit 1: Ads Vs. Circular Contradiction Post
- MT359 Unit 2: Positioning Statement Test
- MT359 Unit 3: Get, Who, To, By Creative Brief
- MT359 Unit 4: Message Strategy Analysis
- MT359 Unit 5: Publicity Plan With PESO Model
- MT359 Unit 6: IMC Seminar Reflection
- MT359 Unit 7: Sales Promotion Proposal
- MT359 Unit 8: Media and Budget Plan
- MT359 Unit 10: Integrated Campaign Plan
- MT358 Unit 9: Social Media Analytics Report
- MT357 Unit 9: Digital Measurement Framework
- MT355 Unit 9: Survey Data Analysis Exercise
- MT340 Unit 9: Conflict Facilitation Plan
MT359 Unit 9 questions, answered
What is the Lavidge and Steiner hierarchy?
A 1961 model describing the steps a buyer moves through on the way to purchase: awareness, knowledge, liking, preference, conviction and purchase. It is one of several hierarchy-of-effects models used to set communication objectives. In an evaluation plan it helps assign each measure to a stage, so the plan shows which tools are expected to move which steps.
How large does the survey sample need to be?
Large enough that the change you are targeting exceeds the margin of error on the difference between waves. For two waves of 400, that margin runs roughly five to seven points depending on the percentages involved. When a target is smaller than its margin, the honest options are a bigger sample, a longer flight, or a different measure that moves more readily.
Should shopper-card or scanner data be included in a course plan?
Where the scenario allows, yes, since behavioral data show whether awareness turned into buying. Course papers rarely have real loyalty data, so describe what would be requested, from whom and at what cost, and label any figures as assumptions. Pairing one survey measure with one behavioral measure for the same objective is a strong design in most sections.
Where can I find a free MT359 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page holds the complete MT359 Unit 9 evaluation plan, giving each campaign tool its own measure on the Lavidge and Steiner hierarchy.
Why are sales not graded in the MT359 Unit 9 sample?
A competitor's price cut, a hard freeze, the date of Lent and the chain's displays all move sales, so grading the campaign on them would blame or credit it for things it did not cause.