• Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2018

With the spread of smart phones, interest in mobile media is on the increase as useful media recently. Mobile media is assessed as having differentiated advantages from existing media in that not only can they provide consumers with desired information anytime and anywhere but also real-time interaction is possible in them. So far, studies on mobile advertising were mostly researches analyzing satisfaction with, and acceptance of, mobile advertising based on survey, researches focusing on the factors affecting acceptance of mobile advertising messages and researches verifying the effect of mobile advertising on brand recall, advertising attitude and brand attitude through experiments. Most of the domestic mobile advertising studies related to advertisement effect and advertisement attitude have been conducted through experiments and surveys. The advertising effectiveness measure of the mobile ad used the attitude of the advertisement, purchase intention, etc. To date, there have been few studies on the effects of mobile advertising on actual advertising data to prove the characteristics of the advertising platform and to prove the relationship between the factors influencing the advertising effect and the factors. In order to explore advertising effect of mobile advertising platform currently commercialized, this study defined advertising characteristics and media characteristics from the perspective of advertiser, advertising platform and publisher and analyzed the influence of each characteristic on advertising effect. As the advertisement characteristics, we classified advertisement format classified by bar type and floating type, and advertisement material classified by image and text. We defined advertisement characteristics of advertisement platform as Hedonic and Utilitarian media characteristics. As a dependent variable, we use CTR, which is the ratio of response (click) to ad exposure. The theoretical background and the analysis of the mobile advertising business, the hypothesis that the advertisement effect is different according to the advertisement specification, the advertisement material, In the ad standard, bar ads are classified as static framing, Floating ads can be categorized as dynamic framing, and the hypothetical definition of floating advertisements, which are high-profile dynamic framing ads, is highly responsive. In advertising, images with high salience are defined to have higher ad response than text. In the media characteristics classified as practical / hedonic type, it is defined that the hedonic type media has a more relaxed tendency than the practical media, and there is a high possibility of receiving various information because there is no clear target. In addition, image material and hedonic media are defined to be highly effective in the interaction between advertisement specification and advertisement material, advertisement specifications and media characteristics, and advertisement material and media characteristics. As the result of regression analysis on each characteristic, material standard, which is a characteristic of mobile advertisement, and media characteristics separated into 'Hedonic' and 'Utilitarian' had significant influence on advertisement effect and mutual interaction effect was also confirmed. In the mobile advertising standard, the advertising effect of the floating advertisement is higher than that of the bar advertisement, Floating ads were more effective than text ads for image ads. In addition, it was confirmed that the advertising effect is higher in the practical media than the hedonic media. The research was carried out with the big data collected from the mobile advertising platform, and it was possible to grasp the advertising effect of the measure index standard which is used in the practical work which could not be grasped in the previous research. In other words, the study was conducted using the CTR, which is a measure of the effectiveness of the advertisement used in the online advertisement and the mobile advertisement, which are not dependent on the attitude of the ad, the attitude of the brand, and the purchase intention. This study suggests that CTR is used as a dependent variable of advertising effect based on actual data of mobile ad platform accumulated over a long period of time. The results of this study is expected to contribute to establishment of optimum advertisement strategy such as creation of advertising materials and planning of media which suit advertised products at the time of mobile advertisement.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2017

'The worstest environment disaster', 'World's first biocide massacre', 'Home-based Sewol ferry disaster' are all phrases attached to the recent humidifier disinfectant disaster. In the spring of 2011, four of 8 pregnant women including 1 adult man passed away at a university hospital in Seoul due to breathing failure. Epidemiologic investigation conducted by the Korean CDC soon revealed the inhalation of humidifier disinfectant, which had been widely used in Korea during the winter, to be responsible for the disease. As well as lung fibrosis hardening of the lungs, other diseases including asthma, rhinitis, skin disease, liver disease, fetal disease or cancers have been researched for their relation with exposure to the products. By February 9, 2017, 5,342 cases had registered for health problems and 1,131 of them were already dead (20.8% mortality rate). Based on studies by government agencies and a telephone survey of the general population by Seoul National University and civic groups, around 20% of the general public of Korea has used these products. Since the market release of the first product by SK Chemical in 1994, over 7.1 million items from around 20 brands were sold up to 2011. Most of the products were manufactured by well-known large conglomerates such as SK, Lotte, Samsung, Shinsegye, LG, and GS, as well as some European companies including UK-based Reckitt Benckiser and TESCO, the German firm Henkel, the Danish firm KeTox, and an Irish company. Even though this disaster was unveiled in 2011 by the Korean government, the issue of the victims was neglected for over five years. In 2016, an unexpected but intensive investigation by prosecutors found that Reckitt Benckiser manipulated and concealed animal tests for its own brand and brought several university experts and company employees to court. The matter was an intense social issue in Korea from May to June with a surge in media coverage. The prosecutor's investigation and a nationwide boycott campaign organized by victims and environmental groups against Reckitt Benckiser, whose product had been used by more than 70% of victims, led to the producer's official apology and a compensation scheme. A legislative investigation organized after the April 2016 national election revealed the producers' faults and the government's responsibility, but failed to meet expectations. A special law for the victims passed the National Assembly in January 2017 and a punitive system together with a massive environmental epidemiology investigation are expected to be the only solutions for this tragedy. Sciences of medicine, toxicology and environmental health have provided decisive evidence so far, but for the remaining problems the perspectives of social sciences such as sociology and jurisprudence are highly necessary, similar to with the Minamata disease and Wonjin Rayon events. It may not be easy to follow this issue using unfamiliar terminology from medical and chemical science and the long, complicated history of the event. For these reasons the author has attempted to write this article in a question and answer format to render it easier to follow. The 17 questions are: Q1 What is humidifier disinfectant? Q2 What kind of health problems are caused by humidifier disinfectant? Q3 How many victims are there? Q4 What is the analysis of the 1,112 cases of death? Q5 What is the problem with the government's diagnostic criteria and the solution? Q6 Who made what brands? Q7 Has there been a recall? What is still on sale? Q8 Was safety not checked by any producers? Q9 What are the government's responsibilities? Q10 Is it true that these products were sold only in Korea? Q11 Why and how was it unveiled only in 2011 after 17 years of sales? Q12 What delayed the resolution of the victim issue? Q13 What is the background of the prosecutor's investigation in early 2016? Q14 Is it possible to report new victim cases without evidence of product purchase? Q15 What is happening with the victim issue? Q16 How does it compare with the cases of Minamata disease and Wonjin Rayon? Q17 Are there prevention measures and lessons?