Case Study Sizzler, a globally recognised casual dining restaurant chain famous for its salad bars, grilled steaks, seafood, and signature cheese toast, was founded in 1958 when restaurateurs Del and He
MKT100 Principles of Marketing
Semester 2, 2026
Assessment 1 – Individual Case Study Analysis Report (OPEN)
Submission Deadline: Sunday, 5 April 2026, 11:59 pm (Week 5) Assessment
weighting – 20%
Purpose of this assessment
This assessment aims to deepen student understanding of the situational analysis tools, including Porter's Five Forces and SWOT analysis.
Demonstrate achievement of these learning outcomes:
ULO 1. Explain the key marketing concepts and principles used in analysing various marketing mix tools at local and global levels.
ULO 2. Communicate marketing messages that align with business strategy and customer/client characteristics.
ULO 3. Apply theoretical frameworks to decision-making to resolve practical marketing problems.
Case Study
Sizzler, a globally recognised casual dining restaurant chain famous for its salad bars, grilled steaks, seafood, and signature cheese toast, was founded in 1958 when restaurateurs Del and Helen Johnson opened the first Sizzler restaurant in California, USA. Over the decades, Sizzler became a popular family dining destination known for its buffet-style dining experience and affordable meals.
Sizzler previously operated successfully in Australia for many years and developed a strong customer following. However, on 15 November 2020, all Sizzler restaurants in Australia were closed, with the company citing the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the hospitality industry.
In 2025, Sizzler is set to return to the Australian market after almost six years, with plans to reopen its first location at Minor Hotels' new NH Collection Hotel near Sydney Airport. This reopening marks the brand's re-entry into Australia and signals the potential revival of the well-known restaurant chain. Sizzler has also indicated plans to expand to additional locations across Australia if the relaunch proves successful.
As a member of Sizzler's marketing team, your role is to conduct a comprehensive situation analysis to evaluate whether further expansion into the Australian market is a viable and strategic move for the brand. Your analysis will support senior decision-makers by identifying market opportunities, consumer demand, potential challenges, and Sizzler's competitive positioning within Australia's highly competitive casual dining and fast-food industry.
Access more information about Sizzler by visiting:
https://sizzler.com/
Task:
Conduct a situation analysis using Porter's Five Forces and SWOT to reach a conclusion about the attractiveness of the current target market.
Porter's Five Forces should include the following five aspects:
- Threat of new entrants
- Bargaining power of supplier
- Bargaining power of buyers
- Threat of substitute
- Rivalry among existing competitor
A SWOT analysis includes strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
Task description:
To complete this assessment, students are required to:
- Conduct Porter's Five Forces analysis.
- Conduct a SWOT analysis.
- Reach a conclusion about the attractiveness of the current target market.
Word count:
Length: 1500 words (excluding reference list) (plus/minus 10%).
The structure of this assessment:
- SCI Cover Page
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Body
- Porter's Five Forces analysis
- SWOT analysis
- Conclusion
- References
Other requirements
- Upload an MS Word file.
- Format: 12-point Arial, Calibri, or Times New Roman, 1.5-line spacing, with page numbers inserted at the bottom right.
Citation and referencing (APA 7th edition)
The assignment should show evidence of research. Do not use Wikipedia as a reference source. Unless it is a generic theory/model, cited publications must be within the past ten (10) years. All citations and references must adhere to APA 7th edition referencing style.
Assessment submission
Before the due date, students are allowed three (3) submission attempts, which provides an opportunity to check for unintended plagiarism using text-matching software. Assignments with a similarity rate above 30% may indicate academic misconduct and should be revised before submission.
Academic Integrity and Misconduct
Students must submit original work and uphold academic integrity at Southern Cross Institute (SCI). The Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure outlines the principles of academic honesty and details the consequences of misconduct, including plagiarism, recycling, fabricating information, collusion, cheating in examinations, contract cheating, artificial intelligence tools, dishonest behaviour etc. SCI utilises Turnitin to encourage proper citation practices and to detect potential academic misconduct.
Ethical Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Tools
This assessment is OPEN. The ethical use GenAI tools is permitted for this assessment task.
Refer to the Quick Guide for Students created by the Learning Support Team for best practices in using GenAI tools. While GenAI can assist with idea generation, structuring, and drafting, students must carefully review, paraphrase, and properly reference any AI-generated content if used.
Overreliance on AI may raise academic integrity concerns such as fabricating information.
Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software
As per American Psychological Association (2020), the reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:
OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat
- Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
- Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)
Note: Although here we focus on ChatGPT, they can be adapted to the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.
For further details, please refer to the MKT100 Unit Outline for additional information or contact your Lecturer. Please refer to the next page for the marking rubric.
Rubric for Assessment 1 (OPEN)
| Criteria | Fail (0 – 49%) | Pass (50-64%) | Credit (65-74%) | Distinction (75-84%) | High Distinction (85 – 100%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ability to describe, explain and apply key marketing concepts and tools (30%) | Inaccurate description and explanation of marketing concepts and tools. Demonstrates a lack of understanding of the theoretical models studied. | Largely accurate description and explanation of marketing concepts and tools. Demonstrates an average understanding of the theoretical models studied. | Good description and explanation of marketing concepts and tools. Demonstrates an above-average understanding of the theoretical models studied. | In-depth description and explanation of marketing concepts and tools. Demonstrates a sound understanding of the theoretical models studied. | Exceptional description of marketing concepts and tools. Demonstrates exceptional understanding of the theoretical models studied. |
Analysis (25%) | Demonstrated no or little analytical rationale. No evidence of being able to apply the strategic tools to provide analysis. | Demonstrated some degree of analytical rationale. Displayed limited application of strategic tools to provide analysis. | Demonstrated a reasonable analytical rationale. Displayed some application of strategic tools to provide reasonable reasons for outcomes. | Demonstrated a sound analytical rationale. Displayed a reasonable amount of application of strategic tools to provide sound reasons for outcomes. | Demonstrated a thorough analytical rationale. Used the strategic tools to provide well thought-out reasons for outcomes. |
Use of Evidence, Research, and Ethical AI Integration (15%) | Lacks credible sources or does not use evidence to support the argument. Does not acknowledge AI use, or AI-generated content is used unethically (e.g., AI-generated text is presented as original work). | Uses a limited range of sources, some of which may not be credible. Some attempt to integrate AI, but lacks transparency (e.g., AI assistance not cited) or AI use is superficial. | Uses a range of sources. AI tools (if used) are acknowledged but not always critically evaluated. Evidence supports the argument, though integration may be uneven. | Uses a range of credible sources and transparently integrates AI use (e.g., AI-assisted research, summarization). AI use is appropriately cited and critically evaluated. | Utilises a wide range of credible sources and integrates AI ethically and transparently. AI is used as a tool to enhance critical analysis, not replace original thought. AI use is critically evaluated for reliability and bias. |
Argument Development, Organisation, and Ethical Use of AI-Generated Content (15%) | Report is unstructured and disorganised. Sections are disjointed, and transitions are unclear or missing. AI-generated content is misused (e.g., direct AI-generated text without critical engagement). | Report has basic structure and organisation. Some sections may be poorly arranged, and transitions are unclear. AI-generated content (if used) is acknowledged but not meaningfully engaged with. | Report has a sound structure and organisation. Some sections may not flow logically or may have weak transitions. AI-generated content (if used) is critically engaged with but could be better integrated. | Report is well-organised with a clear structure. Sections generally flow logically. AI-generated content (if used) is transparently cited and well-integrated. | Report is exceptionally well-organised with a clear structure. AI-generated content (if used) is transparently cited, critically analysed, and meaningfully enhances the originality and depth of the argument. |
Writing Quality, Referencing, and Ethical Citation of AI Use (15%) | Writing is unclear, with frequent grammatical errors. Referencing is inaccurate or absent. AI use (if any) is not cited, or citation is inappropriate. | Writing is often unclear and contains several grammatical errors. Referencing has multiple inconsistencies with APA 7 but has been attempted. AI use is acknowledged but citation is inconsistent. | Writing is generally clear but may contain some grammatical errors. Referencing is mostly accurate but may have minor inconsistencies with APA 7 style. AI use is appropriately cited but lacks critical reflection. | Writing is mostly clear and concise, with few grammatical errors. Referencing is mostly accurate and consistent with APA 7 style. AI use is cited correctly and includes some critical evaluation. | Writing is clear, concise, and free of grammatical errors. Referencing is accurate and follows APA 7 style consistently. AI use is cited correctly, with critical reflection on its role in the research and writing process. |
