Building Content to Drive Engagement Nordic Approach

Posted: January 20th, 2023

Prompt: Your task is to make a Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, Weibo, or other Social Media “Image” post that you believe will create engagement (in other words this is not a video post).
You have the choice of two clients.
CLIENT A: You have already learned about The Nordic Approach. Reese Brown has offered to consider posting, and give feedback on, any post you create for his organization. If you’d like an opportunity to create real content for a professional portfolio – this is a great opportunity. You will also get a copy of all the analytics associated with the post if it goes live (and I’m happy to review those with you after the course as well). How can you engage the current audience for The Nordic Approach?
CLIENT B: Use the client you’ve chosen for your final course project(and the client I choose is WWF). Design a post for their social media. If they don’t have one of the platforms that uses a static image site (for instance – if you have a client that ONLY uses YouTube) – please use CLIENT A. Please plan to design for an organic (unpaid) audience.
Here are the guidelines:
Use a design tool like Canva (or a Canva alternative) to design your post. Be sure to include the content and the copy. Should you include a location? tag? hashtag??
In your Discussion Board post, write a paragraph or two explaining why you think your post will generate engagement. Be sure to reference the course readings and materials to support your argument about why you think your post will generate engagement (show that you know what engagement is).
Readinds（include uploaded files):
https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-eng…
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/free-visual-con…

https://www.talkwalker.com/blog/best-social-media-…
Rubric for Research Paper

 
 
Outstanding – 20pts
Good  – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts

 
Outline
 
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Professional looking.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
 
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
 
Disorganized appearance.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Not professional.

Abstract
 
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
 
Not very informative or understandable.
 

Structure
 
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate.   Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.

Research
 
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
 
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used.  The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
 
Multiple sources cited  incorrectly.
Bibliography missing.
 

Critical
Thinki
 
ng
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
Arguments are
pertinent to the topic.   Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.