The case presents various points of view on the issue of tourism in Venice. Whose perspective(s), if any, do you agree with?
The case presents various points of view on the issue of tourism in Venice. Whose perspective(s), if any, do you agree with?
Should companies that contribute to historic renovation projects be allowed to place advertising on the buildings?
In June 2011, city officials in Venice approved a tax on tourists staying in the city. Do you think this is a fair and effective way to generate revenue and limit the number of tourists?
Do you think that Venice’s tourist officials should use marketing communications to provide information that would direct visitors to areas of the city that are “less touristy”?
General Instructions:
Develop well thought-out responses to the case study questions listed above, in your own words. Your writing should be formal.
Problems and scope were mostly identified; focused on most underlying problems
13.0 to >7.0 pts
Fair
Problems and scope were not clearly identified; focus on key underlying problems is missing
7.0 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Problems and scope were not identified; focus on key underlying problems is missing
25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Analyzing, Evaluating, and Formulating Potential Courses of Action
30.0 to >23.0 pts
Excellent
Very well thought out analysis of priorities and key issues in light of case facts and strategic goals ; very good evaluation of potential alternatives; succinct formulation of options
23.0 to >15.0 pts
Satisfactory
Well thought out analysis of priorities and key issues in light of case facts and strategic goals ; good evaluation of potential alternatives; good formulation of options
15.0 to >8.0 pts
Fair
Analysis of priorities and key issues (in light of case facts and strategic goals) is lacking in detail; evaluation of potential alternatives is weak; formulation of options brief
8.0 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Analysis of priorities and key issues (in light of case facts and strategic goals) has no detail; evaluation of potential alternatives is nonexistent; no formulation of options
30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Recommendations and Conclusions
25.0 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
Provide well thought out rationale for “best” course of action, based on case facts; provide detailed explanation for choice of recommended course of action
19.0 to >13.0 pts
Satisfactory
Provide some rationale for “best” course of action, based on case facts; provide some explanation for choice of recommended course of action
13.0 to >6.0 pts
Fair
Rationale for “best” course of action, based on case facts is very brief and lacks explanation
6.0 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
There is no rationale for “best” course of action, based on case facts, with little to no explanation
25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Organization, Language, and Formatting, incl. APA
20.0 to >15.0 pts
Excellent
Case analysis is logically organized; consistent and proper use of word choice and formal writing style; consistent attention to spelling, grammar, and punctuation; APA guidelines followed throughout.
15.0 to >10.0 pts
Satisfactory
Case analysis is organized appropriately; word choice and writing style are mostly formal ; attention to spelling, grammar, and punctuation has been demonstrated most of the time; APA guidelines followed most of the time.
10.0 to >5.0 pts
Fair
Case analysis is not organized well; needs improvement in the areas of word choice and writing style; spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors are evident, APA guidelines have not been followed.
5.0 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Case analysis is not organized; needs improvement in the areas of word choice and writing style; spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors are evident, APA guidelines have not been followed.
20.0 pts
Total Points: 100.0
