Some media have spent the past week discussing the Cabinet's new practice of combining all departmental promotional budgets to undertake a single annual bulk purchase of media advertising spots, worth a total of NT$1.1 billion. But are the concerns of the opposition parties and some of the media valid? The debate has focused mainly on the following issues.
First, this is a case of government-directed placement marketing. Second, that giving such a huge amount to one advertising company is tantamount to an attempt at co-opting the media. Third, that the government is creating an advantageous situation for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) ahead of next year's presidential election by increasing his media exposure.
Let's first discuss the the placement marketing. The correct term should be "product placement" -- which means that a certain product is placed in a movie or a TV program. It could simply be a prop, or an object used by actors. Someone who wants to place a product in this way has to pay the producer of the film or TV show a fee. This is nothing new -- it has long existed in Hollywood -- but just something that the public has never paid attention to before.
James Bond's watches, cars and drinks are deliberately placed products. The advertiser hopes that the audience inadvertently and without any sense of involvement will form an impression of the product. Products have also silently appeared on television in this way here in Taiwan, and information from some government institutions also have been given the same treatment. Even the clothes of TV news anchors are provided by companies, which are then thanked in the credits at the end of the program. This is all a question of product placement. As long as it is not excessive or sensational, it does not run counter to media ethics.
Government-directed propaganda placement in TV programs originated in this country with the KMT. Faced with opposition challenges in elections during the 1990s, the KMT continued to renew its propaganda. When KMT propaganda waxed nostalgic over the past, TV programs were full of people admonishing us "to be content," that we should "appreciate our good fortune." In the TV series Huang Fei-hung will be popular (
Even more insidiously, during the 1995 legislative elections -- on Oct. 19, 1995, when the election campaign was at its most intense -- candidate Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) appeared on a singing show hosted by a famous female music professor and produced by the Broadcasting Development Fund. He was allowed a lengthy introduction of the song If we open our hearts, which he sang a cappella. What was more laughable was that his performance was accompanied by pictures from his life -- of his family and of him in Red Square in Moscow. That is no longer a case of placement marketing, but rather a case of "abusive" marketing.
Government-directed placement marketing is not what the United Evening News intimated in one of its headlines on page 2 on March 13 -- "GIO demands media place political advertising directly in programs." It is rather a matter of appropriately designing the integration of government advertising in the program. The dialogue in TV series, for example, can be used to praise Taiwanese rice, introduce the new legislation to restrict the use of plastic bags, or to tell people to look for the commodity-inspection logo when purchasing appliances. It could also be used in conjunction with the policy to increase tourism or the promotion of the Forestry Bureau's recreational forest areas.
The criticism that placement marketing affects the quality of programming is far-fetched. Producers are themselves able to consider plots or what tricks to use to integrate such marketing. They will of course suffer if they don't do a good job, but the pressure of viewer ratings forces production departments to consider how well propaganda contents are in tune with program contents. They will not force the issue, just like MGM will not change the way Bond movies look due to the placement of insignificant watches or cars.
Next is the issue of centralized purchasing. Everyone who understands advertising knows that centralized purchasing of advertising is the current trend. This method is advantageous to advertisers. A company buying advertising chooses the media itself in order to create the most advantageous media mix. The GIO and the Public Construction Commission are following these market developments and are revising past decentralized and unprofessional purchasing practices. This is a praiseworthy initiative. So how could the opposition parties criticize this approach -- unless they're worried that they may not get a piece of the pie?
The third issue is whether Chen is using the budget for his own election propaganda and to inflate and polish his halo. In a narrow sense, there is no way he could be doing so. His propaganda team will not be so stupid as to want him to appear on TV each and every day. He's not an actor, so what would he do on TV every day? Further, in a presidential campaign, candidates aren't competing for name recognition. Intense and nonsensical exposure will only irritate the public, and will not bring the candidate credit.
In a wider propaganda sense, however, the result of this government-directed propaganda is in the end certain to be reflected in the composition of the government team. Public appreciation of the work done by the ministries of economy, transportation and communications and finance will be transformed into appreciation of ruling party candidates.
This is the advantage of being in power, and any ruling party would handle these matters in the same way. The KMT did so in the past, and the DPP does so now. Regardless of which party will be in power in future, it will still behave in the same way.
Politicians rely on media interviews, but some media may have ulterior motives, be lazy, neglect to verify facts, make accusations on hearsay, or otherwise misguide the public. It seems we should not only use our votes to eliminate politicians, but that we also should use viewer ratings and readership to monitor the media.
Cheng Tzu-leong is a professor in the department of advertising at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under