| Summary: | 碩士 === 輔仁大學 === 大眾傳播學研究所碩士在職專班 === 104 === In Taiwan, product placement has been a controversial issue since 2003. Some scholars think product placement would destroy the autonomy of media, damage its function of supervision and even invade the rights of the audiences. However, some other scholars think product placement is just a new way of marketing and it has a great effect on enhancing the acceptance of government information for the audiences. Therefore, if it doesn’t cross the line, there is no need to avoid it. This study aims to explore how the government news-turned-placement marketing is made, how much do the audiences understand and does it cause the first-person effect or the third-person effect and if the third-person effect will have behavioral outcomes.
On-line survey was conducted for this research. 580 valid responses were obtained. The results indicate that government news-turned-placement marketing with social needs would make the audiences pay more attention on what the policies are and cause the first-person effect. Besides, it causes the third-person effect for most of the audiences because they don’t think this affect their viewing rights but others’ viewing rights. However, the third-person effect doesn’t have significant impact on behavioral outcomes. In other words, the third-person effect didn’t lead to audience’s support for some regulations on broadcasting the government news-turned-placement marketing.
Under this circumstances, our government could use “ limited opening” mode to deal the government news-turned-placement marketing with social needs. In order to help people to know more, the government could place more information with public service and social needs in the news and commercial broadcasting. By doing this, it could also benefit for people, government and media. People would know much better about the information of public service and the government can fulfill the gap that they didn’t convey the information efficiently. As for the media, since the quid pro quo between the media and the government is inevitable, instead of making laws that doesn’t work out, it’s better to regulate reasonable product placement on the premise that people could know more.
The government should divide its promoting budge into media transparently instead of doing it under-the-table which may cause cruel competition among media. In addition, the government should try best to make the media report spontaneously and that means the staff should know more about journalism or invite some senior journalists to help so that it could save more money and achieve the goal of promoting the policies.
|
|---|
