廣播電視之商業置入性行銷：從言論自由之角度出發

Abstract

廣播電視之商業置入性行銷係於媒體節目內容中出現特定商品、服務或商標，而該商品係由企業或個人以對價方式置入於節目之中的行為。在我國，此種商業置入性行銷的行為，其合法性曖昧不明，禁制規定之合憲性亦不明。在我國廣播電視中，有節目與廣告應予區分之規範，將下列三種類型的節目列為禁止：置入性行銷、資訊性廣告、單純資訊介紹之節目。本文擬由憲法言論自由之角度出發，主張縱使節目中含有置入性行銷之內容，仍係由媒體及企業共同創造，若禁止將同時侵害了兩方的言論自由。資訊性廣告與置入性行銷不同，僅為單純企業之言論，而為較長時間之廣告。至於單純資訊介紹之節目，若僅因其含有商業資訊內容而禁止，則是完全侵害了媒體在節目上的表現自由，本文即企圖釐清上述三者在憲法上意義之不同。歸納我國司法實務以及行政機關見解，可以發現政府企圖禁止者係閱聽眾在節目中因商業資訊之傳遞而引發消費衝動，然而本文認為此種立法目的及採取之手段，實踐上以目前我國節目與廣告應予區分之規範，不但涵蓋範圍過廣亦過窄，而可能造成嚴重之寒蟬效應而有違憲之虞。由於置入性行銷必須以節目做為載體，故為節目與廣告不可區分之狀況，而其言論類型為何即產生疑問。本文認為無論以言論傳播者、言論內容等方式皆無法判斷置入性行銷是否屬於商業性言論，故必須另外提出違憲審查之基準。在此，本文參考美國及歐盟之規定，提出對於置入性行銷之規範的兩項準則：閱聽眾信賴節目之客觀中立性程度、置入之內容是否故意引人錯誤或誤導。簡言之，若人民對於節目中之商業資訊來源並無特殊信賴，則無需禁止。而置入之商業資訊內容若影響人民之商業決定，而使其做出錯誤的商業交易，則此種言論亦無保護之必要。進一步而言，以節目類型而言，人民對新聞節目具備高度之信賴，在內部新聞自由之討論尚未成熟之前，亦應認為縱使以傳統之新聞自由之角度而言，媒體經營者仍不得主張新聞有被收買的自由屬於新聞自由的一部分。故新聞節目不得置入性行銷。又依商品類型為例，縱使我國對於菸品、酒品、藥品化妝品等廣告有諸多限制，亦不應適用於置入性行銷之情形。而此些商品之置入性行銷若非具有誤導或引人錯誤之情形，則可採取開放之態度。民國100年行政院送立法院之衛星廣播電視法修正草案明文將置入性行銷列入規範，本文亦一併提出修正意見。最後，由於置入性行銷已深入於各媒體而不僅限於廣播電視中，故本文於最後一章亦以拋磚之名，討論置入性行銷於報紙、電影、部落格之現況。

Radio and Television of the commercial product placement is the media content showing a specific product, service or trademark. According to exchange the opportunity to reveal such content, programs makers would solicit donations. The legality of commercial product placement in our country is ambiguous as well as constitutionality. The laws differentiating programming and advertising shows the way how our government rule the three types of such contents: product placement in the program, Infomercial advertising, the program simply introduced the commercial information. From the point of view of free speech, even there are some product placement in formation in the program, the program still created by program maker and manufacturers. Therefore, the ban against the freedom of program makers and manufacturers at the same time. Information advertising is different from product placement because it only created by the manufacturers. Also the program simply introducing the commercial information is created by program makers but manufacturers. This article tried to distinguish the meanings in the constitution from those three different contents. To reduce to the practical understandings, it showed that the administrative organization and the courts believed that stimulating the consumption in the program should be banned. However, this article doubted this point of view, and argued the constitutionality of these rules. Also the type of speech of product placement is also an issue in this article. Regardless from the speaker, proposal, possibility, it can not be easily conclude product placement is commercial speech or not. Comparing the rules of United States of America and European Union, this article suggested two standards to test the constitutionality of the rules of product placement. The first was the confidence of the audience. The second was whether there is misleading information or the message would make audience decide wrong in commercial transactions. In short, the product placement should not banned, if people have no special reliance from the commercial information in the program. Also, it is not necessary to protect the information or speech from product placement which mislead people making wrong commercial decision. Furthermore, most audience have high sense of trust in the news. Before the maturity of inner-freedom of press discussion, it should not agree with that the media has such freedom to sell news to any interest groups from the traditional view of free press. From the perspective of categories of goods , even there are some advertising bans in tobacco, alcohol, cosmetics, drugs, it should not limit the product placement in such goods. This article suggested that should not be banned only if product placement included misleading or false information. The draft of Satellite Broadcasting Act ruled product placement, and this article also gave advice and made suggestions also. In conclusion, this article introduced product placement in other media, like newspapers, movies, and blogs.