An MT450 Unit 7 proposal weighs a winter pac boot, a belt and a stitched slip-on for Ostrander, judging fit as customers see it, and backs the resoleable $189 moc. Searches like "mt 450 unit 7 assignment example", "mt450 unit 7 sample" and "mt450 unit 7 example" land here.
What a finished MT450 Unit 7 brand extension proposal looks like
Seven pages arranged as a proposal to the brand's leadership. Page one states the recommendation, an Ostrander Porch Moc at $189, stitched to a leather sole the factory can replace, sold first through boutiques and the company's site. Three candidates are then scored. A composite survey of 240 owners and 160 non-owners rated each on overall fit and on the three dimensions Aaker and Keller described in 1990: complement, substitute and transfer. The insulated pac boot scores highest on fit at 5.6 of 7, yet 64 percent of owners expected it to be resoleable, which a molded shell cannot be. The belt rates 4.1. The moc reaches 5.2 and fulfills the expectation. A risk section, a launch outline and a withdrawal criterion follow.
How a MT450 Unit 7 example is structured
Fit is argued from the customer side throughout, so factory capability appears only under difficulty, the one dimension where the company's own skills matter to buyers. All three candidates get the same four rows, complement, substitute, transfer and perceived difficulty, and the scores sit beside the associations from Unit 3 that they would strengthen or strain. The pac boot is rejected at length because it looks like the obvious winner: highest fit, largest market, and a sole that breaks the promise the brand is building. The recommendation follows only after that rejection. Risk to the parent is handled as a scenario, stating what a poorly made moc would do to the rebuilt-instead-of-replaced idea among work buyers, and the channel choice limits that exposure. The final page sets an exit rule: withdraw the moc if its resole requests fall below a stated rate by year three.
Four evenings a week off the job
Surveyed owners report wearing their work boots to dinner, errands and the porch. The proposal treats that habit as the need, and notes that 31 percent already own a slipper they describe as falling apart within a year.
Complement, substitute, transfer
Each candidate is rated on how well it goes with the boots, how far it could replace them, and whether the leather skill carries over. The pac boot wins on complement; the moc wins on transfer.
Why the pac boot loses
Sixty-four percent of owners assumed an Ostrander winter boot could be resoled. A molded rubber shell cannot, so the proposal predicts the refused-repair complaints already seen with Ridgeback, this time under the master name itself.
The moc and its channel
A $189 stitched slip-on with a replaceable leather sole launches through boutiques and the company site, away from safety distributors. Keeping it out of the work channel limits how many work buyers meet it before it proves itself.
When to withdraw
If fewer than 8 percent of mocs sold in the first year return for resoling by the end of year three, the proposal reads the product as disposable in practice and recommends ending it before the parent association weakens.
Where marks go in MT450 Unit 7
Fit argued from the factory floor, the company can make it and so it fits, is the weakness graders most often flag in MT450 extension proposals. They usually expect fit judged by customers, with evidence, and a proposal that never asks buyers what the extension would mean to them misses the grading core. Treating the parent's risk as an afterthought costs credit too; rubrics often reserve a row for what failure would do to the original brand. Candidates compared on consistent criteria earn more than a single idea defended alone. A proposal whose best-scoring option is rejected needs a strong reason, and this one supplies it from the associations analysis. Papers with no launch limits or exit condition tend to read as enthusiasm, since a reversible, measured launch is part of what makes an extension defensible.
Get a MT450 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Choose the parent brand and the new product your Unit 7 prompt asks about, or name two or three candidates when the pick is yours. Attach the instructions and rubric. The first custom proposal is free, returned inside 24-48h, with fit scored from the buyer's side and what failure would cost the parent brand stated plainly.
MT450 Unit 7 questions, answered
What makes an extension a poor fit?
Usually a gap between what customers already believe about the brand and what the new product would ask them to believe. A name known for durability attached to a disposable item strains that belief, even if the factory can make it easily. Look for the association the extension relies on, then check whether the product would honor it or quietly contradict it.
Do I need survey data to judge fit?
It helps but is not always required. Some sections accept reasoning from published reviews, earlier audit findings or a few interviews. Whatever the evidence, rate each candidate on the same criteria, such as those Aaker and Keller proposed, and explain where each rating came from, so the comparison is visible rather than asserted.
Should the proposal include a launch plan?
A short one, if the prompt allows. Channel, price and timing matter because they control how much risk the parent carries. Keep it to a page or less and connect each choice to the fit and risk analysis. A detailed marketing plan usually belongs to a later unit or a different course, and it can crowd out the evaluation being graded.