IB Business Management HL Extended Essay Example

The scope shifts here from the global smartphone industry in the research question to a mainly US-focused discussion. The student should define one geographic frame and keep the evidence aligned to it, otherwise the argument becomes fragmented and the “extent” being measured is unclear.

The research question is clear, evaluative, and genuinely business-focused. The phrase “to what extent” creates room for judgment rather than description only, which is the right starting point for an extended investigation.

How will the student separate the effect of marketing from other factors such as a new device launch, pricing changes, or competitor actions? Without that distinction, the method risks measuring correlation rather than the impact the research question asks about.

The methodology is still framed as intended rather than implemented, and the promised primary research is not actually used in the essay. The student should explain what was done, not only what would be done, and show how each source type directly helped answer the question.

A stronger methodology would name explicit selection criteria, such as why certain market-share datasets, company reports, and reviews were preferred over others. That would show informed source selection rather than a general statement about credibility.

The chosen framework is appropriate because the 4Ps gives the investigation a clear analytical structure. This helps the student move from broad topic description to a more focused examination of marketing choices.

This description is inaccurate because SWOT includes both internal and external factors, not just external ones. The student should use the tool more precisely so the analysis reflects the actual purpose of SWOT.

The method here is too vague to function as a real analytical tool. The student should specify exactly what data will be quantified, how the calculation will be performed, and how the result will connect to marketing effectiveness rather than simply labeling it as “quantitative.”

This is a strong example of method-to-argument connection because the student links product life-cycle thinking to a specific Pixel decision. That makes the analysis more purposeful than a generic theory summary.

The student could strengthen focus by explicitly tying each tool back to the same research question in one sentence. Doing this at the start of each section would keep the essay anchored to market share rather than drifting into separate topic summaries.

The SWOT section mixes a market-access issue with a demand-concept issue, but the “Elastic PED” point is not explained consistently here or later. The student should separate internal weaknesses from external conditions and justify why each belongs in the chosen category.

The student uses a concrete source-backed statistic rather than relying only on assertion. This grounds the discussion in evidence and makes the brand-strength claim more credible.

This shifts from Pixel-specific knowledge to Google/Alphabet-wide knowledge without clearly showing how it affects Pixel market share. The student should keep the discussion tightly connected to the product under investigation, otherwise the evidence becomes too broad to support the claim.

This is a useful concept, but it is applied too generally and without supporting evidence from the Pixel market. The student should show how demand elasticity specifically affects Pixel pricing decisions or consumer responses rather than presenting it as a standalone fact.

The student could improve source application by explaining what this external forecast actually implies for Pixel, not just the broader category. A brief comparison between the forecast and Pixel’s own product strategy would make the evidence more purposeful.

The market-share evidence is applied correctly in principle, but the paragraph stops short of explaining what the concentration ratio means for Pixel specifically. The student should interpret the statistic in relation to competitive pressure and strategic limits, not just report it.

This list shows clear understanding of the product features that differentiate Pixel. The student is not just naming features; they are selecting ones that logically connect to consumer appeal and market positioning.

The pricing discussion would be stronger if it compared actual device prices and explained whether Pixel is truly priced comparably, above, or below rivals. At present, the claim is plausible but not demonstrated with systematic evidence.

This repeats a SWOT point without adding new subject understanding about how distribution affects market share. The student should move from restating the framework to explaining the real commercial consequence of limited availability.

The analysis identifies a valid differentiator, but it still reads as description unless the student shows why this differentiation should change buying behaviour. The student should connect the feature advantage to consumer choice, competitive response, and ultimately market-share movement.

This is a clear organizing statement that helps the argument progress logically through the promotion section. It shows the student can structure the analysis around a business framework rather than drifting into unconnected detail.

The evaluation here is too general and heavily assertive. The student should explain what evidence shows that the ATL campaign was “highly successful” and whether that success translated into sales or market share rather than only awareness.

This is a plausible argument, but it needs stronger evaluation of alternatives. The student should ask whether India expansion was driven by marketing strategy alone or also by broader growth opportunities, price sensitivity, and competitive positioning in that market.

This conclusion is too causal for the evidence shown. The student should not attribute the entire increase to marketing without testing other explanations such as the Pixel 9 launch, seasonality, competitor performance, or the limits of the StatCounter measure used.

The student does well to include a direct numerical comparison and a calculation, because this gives the analysis a measurable basis. Quantification is especially valuable here since the research question asks about market-share impact.

It would be stronger to compare Pixel’s movement against Apple’s decline and the rest of the market in the same sentence. That would help the student judge whether Pixel’s gain reflects genuine strategic success or simply a temporary reallocation within the market.

This is an important claim, but it is asserted rather than demonstrated. The student should explain the chain of reasoning more carefully: how exactly did manufacturing changes affect cost, pricing, and then market share, and what evidence shows that this happened in the period studied?

The conclusion would be stronger if it stated a clearer final judgment about the degree of influence. The student should decide whether the evidence supports a moderate, substantial, or limited impact and then justify that judgment with the strongest findings.

If the increase is described as “185.07%” earlier, what exactly is meant by “only incrementally advanced” here? The student should reconcile this tension, because a strong argument needs consistent interpretation of the same evidence.

This is a thoughtful and credible limitation because the student identifies the exact kind of evidence that is missing. Recognizing this constraint strengthens the overall evaluation by showing awareness of the study’s boundaries.

The appendices are clearly signposted in the contents, which is useful because the report relies on calculations and supporting material. Good signposting helps the reader distinguish main argument from supplementary evidence.

This label is misleading because the discussion underneath is really a descriptive market-share analysis rather than a full financial analysis. The student should use section titles that accurately reflect the content so the structure matches the argument.

The submission includes a clear contents page, which makes the investigation easy to navigate. This supports the reader’s ability to follow the sequence of the argument and locate sections efficiently.

This section heading omits the standard order by placing place before promotion, and the later table appears to repeat “Price” where a product heading would be expected. The student should keep framework labels consistent so the presentation is precise and easy to interpret.

The student could improve presentation by making section titles more uniform in style and more directly linked to the research question. Clearer, more consistent headings would make the argument feel more controlled and purposeful.

The heading is appropriate for the figure itself, but the surrounding analysis should clarify what the statistic measures and why it matters to the research question. The reader needs a brief interpretive bridge between the chart and the argument.

The conclusion is clearly labelled and placed in a logical position near the end of the essay. This makes the overall structure easy to follow and shows the student has included the expected major sections.