IB Business Management SL Extended Essay Example

The student gives a clear line of inquiry and keeps returning to it, which helps the investigation stay recognisably focused. The phrasing shows an attempt to connect glocalisation to market penetration rather than simply describing Dior, which is a strong basis for the essay.

The methodology is clearly stated and appropriate for an EE of this type. The student also explains why primary research was not used, which shows awareness of practical constraints and makes the method feel deliberate rather than accidental.

This claim is too broad and underspecified: “Asia” is treated as one market, but the investigation later draws on China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Macau, and Thailand. The student should define which countries or sub-markets are being studied and why, so the topic explanation becomes precise rather than regional shorthand.

What would count as “successfully” here: revenue growth, market share, brand recognition, or something else? Making the success criteria explicit at the start would make the whole argument easier to judge and keep the evidence tied to the same standard throughout.

This limitation is important, but the method still needs a sharper plan for separating Dior-specific evidence from LVMH group data. Without that distinction, the later financial analysis risks measuring the parent group rather than the house being investigated.

The student could strengthen the methodology by explaining exactly how the competitor comparison will be used: for example, whether Chanel will be a benchmark for market share, distribution strategy, or luxury positioning. A clearer comparison framework would make the analysis more systematic.

This is a strong application of source material because the student links theory directly to Dior’s heritage rather than leaving Barney as a stand-alone citation. The reasoning shows understanding of why heritage matters in luxury branding.

The Ansoff/Porter application here is conceptually shaky: a region being “smaller” than the world does not automatically make it a narrow segment. The student should define the relevant segment by consumer profile, country, or luxury submarket rather than by geography alone.

This is too generalized and risks stereotyping “Asian consumers” as one uniform group. The student should support this claim with country-specific evidence or qualify it by market segment, because the essay later discusses very different places and consumer behaviours.

This is relevant evidence because it directly illustrates glocalised branding in action. The student uses specific examples such as Jisoo and Jay Chou, which makes the discussion more concrete and better grounded in source material.

The conclusion here goes beyond the evidence provided. The student should add consumer-response data, survey evidence, or sales impact to show that the packaging actually changed customer behaviour rather than simply assuming it produced emotional connection.

The student could elevate this analysis by distinguishing between short-term promotional reach and long-term brand equity. That would help show whether the same action creates both benefits and risks, rather than treating “accessibility” as uniformly positive or negative.

If the risk of identity dilution is real, how could the student demonstrate that Dior has actually reached that point, rather than only facing the possibility? This distinction matters because it separates speculation from evidence-based judgement.

This is too absolute and not sufficiently supported by evidence. The student should either qualify the statement or replace it with source-based reasoning about why foreign origin can enhance luxury appeal in some Asian markets.

This is a strong use of business terminology because it connects distribution choices to different product categories and customer expectations. The student shows understanding that luxury brands do not use one channel strategy for all products.

This is an unsupported overgeneralisation. The student should not assume all Asian consumers want the same level of exclusivity; instead, they should identify which consumer segment is being discussed and provide evidence that Dior’s distribution strategy matches or misses that segment.

It is good that the student acknowledges the limits of the calculation directly. This makes the analysis more credible, because the reader can see that the student recognises the data are imperfect rather than presenting the estimate as exact.

The market-share estimate is not reliable enough to support a key conclusion, because it rests on aggregated LVMH data and a conversion step that does not resolve the underlying attribution problem. The student should treat this as a rough illustration only, not as evidence of Dior’s actual market share.

The student is doing more than describing Dior here; they are explaining why heritage matters strategically. This kind of causal reasoning is a strong feature of the essay and should be replicated elsewhere with similarly specific evidence.

This claim needs more careful substantiation. Manufacturing in Japan does not automatically prove higher quality or stronger differentiation, so the student should explain the causal link with evidence rather than assuming location alone creates value.

This conclusion is plausible, but it is asserted rather than demonstrated. The student should show how much of Dior’s success can be attributed to localised representation compared with other factors such as heritage, pricing, store access, or the general expansion of luxury demand.

The student successfully links limited-edition packaging to a business effect, which shows analytical thinking rather than description. This is effective because it connects a marketing tactic to a plausible customer response.

How could the student tell whether accessibility has already harmed brand image, rather than merely creating a theoretical risk? A brief discussion of evidence such as pricing power, repeat purchase, or sentiment would make this evaluation more convincing.

This is too sweeping given the evidence presented. The student has shown both successful localisation and potential risk, so the judgement should be more conditional and tied to specific measures of success rather than a broad final verdict.

This is a useful analytical move because the student uses theory to organise the discussion of Dior’s strategy. It helps turn the essay from a descriptive brand profile into an argument about how market penetration is being pursued.

The claim that risk is “minimised” is too vague and not demonstrated with evidence. The student should distinguish between lower operational risk, lower market-entry risk, and lower brand risk, because these are not the same thing.

This conclusion is reasonable in direction but still too general. The student should specify which consumer demands were met, which evidence shows that, and what “increase exclusivity” would look like in practice so the recommendation becomes testable.

It is good analytical practice to state explicitly when the evidence weakens the conclusion. That kind of transparency shows the student is evaluating the reliability of the analysis rather than hiding its limitations.

The comparison to Chanel is a useful evaluative device because it gives the reader a benchmark rather than evaluating Dior in isolation. This strengthens the argument by placing Dior’s strategy within a real competitive context.

This is a major leap in reasoning. A comparison between two brands does not by itself prove what “Asian consumer preferences” are, so the student should support this interpretation with consumer research or more direct market evidence.

This is a thoughtful counterargument because it shows the student understands the trade-off at the heart of the investigation. The essay is strongest when it weighs this risk against the benefits of localisation rather than treating glocalisation as purely positive.

The comparison is interesting, but the student should test whether Chanel’s results are actually caused by lower glocalisation or by other factors such as product mix, pricing, or brand positioning. Without that, the evaluation remains suggestive rather than critical.

The overall structure is clear and easy to follow. A contents page signals a deliberate organisation of sections, which is important for an investigation that moves from method to theory, analysis, and conclusion.

The structure would be stronger if each theory section were tied more explicitly to the research question rather than presented as a standalone tool explanation. The student should use the theory headings to build the argument, not just to introduce concepts.

The student could improve clarity by briefly signposting in each major section how the syllabus concept being used helps answer the research question. Small framing sentences would make the logic of the essay more visible to the reader.

The report shows good internal organisation by introducing the calculation before the table and then interpreting it afterward. That sequencing helps the reader understand what the data are meant to prove.

The table layout is workable, but the label is confusing because the calculation depends on LVMH segment data rather than verified Dior-only figures. The student should name the table more cautiously so it reflects that it is an estimate, not a direct company figure.

The report would be more persuasive if the figure were accompanied by a short explanation of how it should be read. The reader needs explicit guidance on why this benchmark matters and how it supports the argument about Dior’s penetration.

The student could strengthen the presentation of the argument by summarising this trade-off in a short concluding sentence at the end of the section. That would help the reader see how the distribution evidence feeds into the final judgement.

The conclusion is structurally effective because it directly answers the research question and returns to the central argument. This gives the essay a clear sense of completion.

The final section would be cleaner if this sentence were merged with the surrounding conclusion so the ending feels more polished. As written, it repeats the research question one more time without adding much interpretive value.