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
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS