Convincing Features
Assignment Type
Subject
Uploaded by Malaysia Assignment Help
Date
Article: Zus Coffee backs Malaysia employee who was verbally abused, splashed with coffee in viral video
KUALA LUMPUR – Zus Coffee has expressed its full support for its employee who was seen in a viral video being verbally abused and splashed with coffee by a customer recently. The coffee chain said on Nov 10 that it was aware of the incident, which took place at one of its outlets on Nov 9.
Zus Coffee said: “Since the incident occurred, we have taken the necessary steps to conduct a thorough investigation and we are standing with our Zurista (barista) through this time.
“Working in retail is not always easy, and things should never have escalated the way they did. At the end of the day, we are all only humans doing our best.”
The coffee chain has also urged the public to respect its employee’s privacy and to refrain from sharing or reposting the video showing her face.
It also urged social media users to not spread false claims and to maintain respectful discourse both online and offline.
“Our Zurista is currently recovering from this incident, we appreciate everyone’s kind assistance to allow her to recover, while we attend the matter with care and fairness,” it said.
Zus added that it does not tolerate disrespectful behaviour towards its employees or customers and remained committed to fostering a safe and respectful environment for everyone in its community.
Earlier, a video clip had gone viral involving a customer shouting at a Zus Coffee employee and throwing her drink onto the counter. video
Reference from: The Straits Times. (2025, November 11). Zus Coffee backs Malaysia employee who was verbally abused, splashed with coffee in viral video. straitstimes
Questions
Coca-Cola battered by a nationwide series of taste-test challenges from the sweeter-tasting Pepsi-Cola,
Coca-Cola decided in 1985 to replace its old formula with a sweeter variation, dubbed New Coke. CocaCola spent $4 million on market research.
Blind taste tests showed that Coke drinkers preferred the new, sweeter formula, but the launch of New Coke provoked a national uproar. Market researchers had measured the taste but failed to measure the emotional attachment consumers had to Coca-Cola. There were angry letters, formal protests, and even lawsuit threats to force the retention of “The Real Thing.” Ten weeks later, the company withdrew New Coke and reintroduced its century-old formula as “Classic Coke,” a move that ironically might have given the old formula even stronger status in the marketplace
Source from: Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing Management (14th ed.). Prentice-Hall. You may also see the YouTube video to get some ideas about the above-mentioned statement.
1) In 1985, a gigantic drinks company, Coca Cola failed in their marketing strategy of introducing New Coke to the market. They have brought back the Classic Coke for less than 3 months back to win back the market share.
Explain TWO (2) reasons why the New Coke marketing research failed, using examples from the Coca-
Cola case study. (10 marks)
1.0 You are required to answer all questions in this assessment. Please ensure that your answers follow the numbering system according to the questions provided (e.g., use 1.0, 1.1 for Question 1; 2.0, 2.1 for Question 2).
2.0 Each point of your answer must contain a minimum of 200 words.
This means that if a question asks for ONE (1) point or TWO (2) points, each point must be written in at least 200 words to demonstrate depth, clarity, and postgraduate-level critical analysis.
3.0 All answers must be written in fully justified paragraphs, with 1.5 line spacing throughout the entire document. Ensure a formal academic writing style.
4.0 All text must be typed in Times New Roman, font size 12, including headings, paragraphs, and tables.
5.0 Please spell-check and proofread your report before submission to avoid grammatical, spelling, or formatting errors.
6.0 You may use bulleted or numbered lists where appropriate to enhance clarity, especially when highlighting key arguments or examples.
7.0 Any tables included must have appropriate column headings and a clear table caption.
Tables must be numbered and referred to within your written discussion.
8.0 All explanations must be supported by citations using APA in-text referencing. At the end of your work, include a complete APA reference list for all sources used, including news articles, websites, academic journals, and textbooks.
9.0 Your answers should demonstrate critical thinking, analysis, and the application of relevant marketing concepts.
| Criteria | Excellent (4–5 marks Q1 / 8–10 marks Q2) | Proficient (3 marks Q1 / 6–7 marks Q2) | Satisfactory (2 marks Q1 / 4–5 marks Q2) | Weak / Needs Improvement (0–1 mark Q1 / 1–3 marks Q2) |
| Strong analysis, clear understanding; 1. Content Quality & Accuracy mostly relevant but lacks some depth or analytical strength. Good understanding of marketing concepts, partially relevant to ZUS Coffee or Coca-Cola case, and supported with solid insights. Basic explanation; highly relevant but descriptive rather than analytical. Minimal or incorrect understanding; irrelevant points; lacks marketing relevance. |
||||
| Uses marketing theories effectively (branding, consumer behaviour, crisis communication, brand failure, etc.) with strong linkage to the case. 2. Application of Marketing Concepts Some theories applied but not fully integrated or justified. Limited surface-level explanations. No concepts applied; incorrect or missing theoretical basis. |
||||
| 3. Depth of Discussion (Min. 200 Words per Point) | Each point exceeds 200 words, well-developed, cohesive, and shows strong reasoning. | Meets minimum depth with acceptable explanation; moderate detail. | Meets the minimum but weak, repetitive, or lacks depth. | Does not meet 200-word minimum; very brief or incomplete. |
| 4. Evidence, Examples & APA Citations | Strong APA citations, credible examples, and relevant supporting sources clearly integrated. | Adequate citations and examples; some areas lack detail. | Limited evidence; inconsistent or weak citations. | No APA citations or examples; unsupported statements. |
| Criteria | Excellent (4–5 marks Q1 / 8–10 marks Q2) | Proficient (3 marks Q1 / 6–7 marks Q2) | Satisfactory (2 marks Q1 / 4–5 marks Q2) | Weak / Needs Improvement (0–1 mark Q1 / 1–3 marks Q2) |
| Clear, organised, well-structured, professional academic tone; fully justified text. 5. Structure, Clarity & Writing Quality Mostly clear and organised; minor issues in flow. Some clarity but writing may be inconsistent. Poorly written, unclear, unstructured, disjointed or not academically appropriate. |
||||
| 6. Formatting & Compliance with Instructions | Fully follows formatting rules: Times New Roman 12, 1.5 spacing, justified, correct numbering (1.0, 1.1; 2.0, 2.1), proper table captions if used. | Mostly compliant with minor formatting errors. | Several formatting mistakes; partial compliance. | Major formatting issues; instructions not followed. |
Many UNIRAZAK students face difficulties completing the Marketing Management Mid-Term Assessment because the questions require deep critical analysis, structured academic writing, and proper APA referencing. If you're struggling to write 200-word analytical points, interpret the ZUS Coffee case, or apply marketing theories to the Coca-Cola New Coke failure, you’re not alone. Our academic experts at Malaysia Assignment Help can prepare a fully customised, plagiarism-free, human-written unirazak assessments. Whether you need support with theoretical application, long-form paragraph structuring, or APA citations, we provide high-quality answers that match postgraduate standards. You can also check our sample work to see the level of detail and clarity we deliver before placing your order.
