Marketing Communications: Firm Performance Analysis and Comparison

This marketing communications assignment analyzes a firm's performance relative to its competitors. The analysis covers corporate marketing, brand advertising, brand promotion, and total marketing communication spending. The student's firm is compared with four others, with key metrics including value market share and unit share. The assignment highlights the importance of marketing communication in creating a competitive edge and its impact on financial performance. The firm's strengths and weaknesses are identified, and the relationship between marketing efforts and market share is explored. The assignment uses data to compare the firm's performance in different marketing areas and draws conclusions about its overall efficiency and market position. The student's firm is ranked against competitors across various marketing metrics, with the analysis emphasizing the link between marketing strategies and business outcomes. The paper includes references to academic sources supporting the analysis.

Last Name 1
Your Name
Instructor Name
Course Number
Date
Marketing Communications
Q. How do your numbers compare with those of your competitors? How do differences in
the numbers explain your firm’s performance?
(i) Corporate marketing
My Firm Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Firm Preference
In terms of corporate marketing, my firm ranks third highest with $135 million dollars.
Firm B has the highest corporate marketing, followed by Firm C with $166 and $149 million
dollars respectively. Firms D and E have the lowest amount in corporate marketing at $117 and
$114 million dollars respectively.
In the recent past, firms have used corporate marketing to enable them to create a competitive
edge over their competitors. When marketing and marketing-related assets of a firm are on the

Last Name 2
higher end, then it means that the financial market performance of that firm will also be high
(Saif, 2015). My firm ranks second which means its performance is good.
(ii) Brand advertising
My Firm Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Firm Preference
My firm sits second just after Firm B with $270 and $324 million dollars invested in brad
advertising. Firm D is third with $250 million dollars while Firms C and E tie at the last position
with $180 million dollars
(iii) Brand Promotion
My Firm Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Firm Preference

Last Name 3
My firm is ranked the highest in brand promotion, followed closely by Firm B and then Firm
D is third. Firm C and Firm E tie as the lowest-ranked.
Brand advertising and brand promotion are both critical drivers of success for any firm.
Branding helps organizations and companies in a number of ways, including improving their
marketing performance, helping them to price their products and services strategically and
increasing the quality perceptions of what they are offering to their target customers (Brodzicki,
2019).
(iv) Total marketing communication
My Firm Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Firm Preference
In terms of overall total marketing communication, my firm is second just after Firm B.
Firms D, C, and E take the third, fourth and fifth positions respectively.
Farm managers are aware of how important resource marketing communications can be for
their business. Efficient and effective marketing communication activities and marketing
communication tools are not enough to boost the performance of the business (Harrington &
Ottenbacher, 2011). Rather, measuring the effectiveness of the marketing communication mix
should be done regularly to know its impact on business performance.

Last Name 4
(v) Value Market Share
My Firm Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Firm Preference
The value market share of my firm is ranked highest at 35.90%. Firms B, D, E, and C rank
second, third, fourth and fifth respectively.
(vi) Unit Share
My Firm Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Firm Preference
Similar to the value of the market share, my firm’s unit share is the highest among the other
four competitors at 42.60%. Firms D, B, E, and C follow at second, third, fourth and fifth,
respectively.

Last Name 5
Companies that are efficient obtain higher-value market share and consequently, their unit
share is also high (Khan & Atlas, 2019). My firm has a high-value market share and unit share,
meaning that the firm is operating on high efficiency which translates to good business
performance.
(vii) Firm Preference
My Firm Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Firm Preference
In terms of firm preference, my firm is second just after Firm B. Firms C, D, and E take
the third, fourth and fifth positions respectively.

Last Name 6
Works Cited
Brodzicki, Tomasz. “The Intensity of Market Competition and the Innovative Performance of
Firms.” Innovation, vol. 21, no. 2, Apr. 2019, pp. 336–58. Taylor and Francis+NEJM,
doi:10.1080/14479338.2018.1532296.
Harrington, Robert, and Michael Ottenbacher. “Strategic Management: An Analysis of Its
Representation and Focus in Recent Hospitality Research.” International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, edited by Rob Law and Billy Bai, vol. 23, no. 4,
Jan. 2011, pp. 439–62. Emerald Insight, doi:10.1108/09596111111129977.
Khan, Kashif Ullah, and Fouzia Atlas. “The Impact of Dominant Logic and Competitive
Intensity on SMEs Performance: A Case from China.” Journal of Innovation & Knowledge,
vol. 4, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 1–11. ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.jik.2018.10.001.
Saif, Nashwan Mohammed Abdullah. “How Does Marketing Strategy Influence Firm
Performance? Implementation of Marketing Strategy for Firm Success.” International
Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, vol. 1, no. 3, 2015, pp. 7–15.