7

2013 11 4, 746www.jomec.com

1)2)3)

*

**

***

.

TV .

(AHP: Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP) ,

,

.

, 1

(39.2%) (33.0%) (27.8%)

* jhmi0410@empas.com, 1

** kimsa1105@naver.com, 2

*** aledma83@nate.com,

8 11 4

. 2 ,

(44.0%) (32.3%) (23.7%)

(44.4%) (40.7%)

(14.9%) . (38.0%)

(33.1%) (28.9%) .

, (17.2%) (14.7%)

, (4.9%)

. 20, 30, 40

1, 2

.

20, 30 40 .

(AHP), , , ,

1.

. 1995 TV

YTN, Y( TV)

, 2011 A, TV

.

.

(,

2012. 10. 04).

.

9

.

(, 2012. 10. 27).

,

(, 2012. 11. 23; , 2012. 11. 21). SBS

SBS

(, 2011.

02. 27). SBS

.

TV

.

(, 2005; ,

2009; , 2005; , 2002; ,

2012; , 2005).

,

. ,

.

.

(AHP: Analytic

Hierarchy Process, AHP)

10 11 4

.

.

, ,

AHP

(Saaty & Vargas, 2001; , 2011, 15

). AHP

,

.

(,

2003; , 2005; , 2011),

(,

2011).

.

2.

1) TV

TV

. ,

TV

.

11

, , ,

, , ,

(

, 2002; , 2004; , 2012; Cooper,

1996; Webster & Wakshlag, 1985).

(, )

( , )

(, 2002), ( , TV )

( , , )

(, 2012).

(, 2011). (2002)

, (2002)

.

, ,

,

(, 2003; , 2005; , 2009;

, 2005; , 2009; , 2007;

, 2005; , 2004).

.

.

12 11 4

.

.

.

, TV

,

TV

(, 2005).

(, 2005; , 2009; , 2009; ,

2007; , 2007; , 2005). TV

(

, 2005).

. 1991

(AI: Appreciation Index)

. KBS ,

, (PSI: Public Service Index)

2006 , , (

) . MBC QI(Quality Index)

//, /, //

.

// ,

, (, 2009).

SBS ASI(Audience Satisfaction Index) , , ,

13

.

TV

. (2005) PSI, QI, ASI KBS1,

KBS2, MBC, SBS ,

.

,

(KBS1, SBS)

. (2005)

, , ,

. , , /

, .

, /,

,

.

, ,

. ,

,

.

QI

(2009)

.

,

.

14 11 4

. QI

, ,

.

,

.

(

, 2009).

(Houlberg, 1984).

(Hovland & Weiss, 1951),

, , ,

(, 1998; , 2012; , 2000;

, 2012; , 2007; , 1999; Conway, 2004;

Hutchinson, 1982). ()

(McGuire, 1985; , 2012 ).

(, 2005).

TV

(1999) TV

. (2004)

15

TV

TV ,

(2007) TV

.

,

.

(2007)

(parasocial interaction)

.

,

.

(2012)

.

(, 1998;

, 1974; , 2012). (2012)

(/) , ,

.

,

. (1998)

.

(, 1998; Berlo, Lemert,

16 11 4

& Mertz, 1969; Kenton, 1989; Ohanian, 1990).

(2000) ,

, , ,

.

. (Kenton, 1989)

(Ohanian, 1990) , ,

.

, TV

,

(, 2005).

,

, ,

(, 2006a; 2006b), ,

, , ,

(, 2009; , 2006a; , 2007).

(brand image)

, (brand quality)

(, 2009).

(brand awareness)

, (brand loyalty)

(, 2005). TV

17

(, 2009; , 2007).

(, 2009;

, 2005; Adams, 2000).

(2005)

( ) ,

.

TV

. , (2005)

TV

. (2007)

4

. ,

.

(, 2009; , 2007; , 2006a).

(McDowell, 1988)

.

.

, (2007)

18 11 4

. ,

,

.

(2006a)

.

.

, , .

.

.

20

.

(, 2009;

, 2009). , ,

.

,

.

19

1 2

1.

. ,

,

.

AHP .

, , .

20 11 4

2) (AHP)

AHP

. AHP

.

TV

. TV

.

(Saaty)

, ,

, AHP

(, 2008). AHP

,

(Saaty, 1990).

AHP

(,

1994).

(pairwise comparison)

(Saaty, 1990). , AHP

. 1

.

21

, , 1 .

1 2

.

,

AHP

(Trade off)

(, 2005).

,

n n(n-1)/2

(, 2005). 1 91)

. 3

(CR:

Consistency Ratio, CR) .

(Saaty, 1980) (eigenvector)

, CR 0.1

(Saaty & Vargas, 2001).

0.2

1) 1 : (equal importance) . 3 : (moderate importance) . 5 : (strong importance) . 7 : (very strong importance) . 9 : (extreme importance) . 2, 4, 6, 8 : (, 2005, 22 ).

22 11 4

(Satty, 1980; , 2003).

4

.

.

1980 (Saaty) AHP ,

, , , AHP

(Davis, 2001; Ho, 2008; Steuer, 2003; Vargas, 1990; Zanakis, et al.,

1995; , 2008 ). AHP

(Vaidya &

Kumar, 2006) , AHP

(selection) .

, ,

.

, AHP ,

, , .

,

,

(, 2006;

, 2011; , 2004; ,

2007). (2004)

AHP , (2012)

. ,

23

(2009) AHP

.

, AHP (2006)

,

.

(2007) TV

,

, , ,

, ,

, .

,

. ,

(2011)

. , -/ 1

, , ,

.

,

.

.

,

24 11 4

.

,

AHP .

.

3.

1)

TV

.

AHP

. TV

.

1

?

TV

( , 2001;

25

, 2003; , 2005; , 2011).

(2003) , , TV

.

(2001) 2030 MBC 50

KBS

.

TV

(2011) , ,

. ,

.

.

2

?

2)

(1)

, 20

2013 7 17 7 30

. 294 ,

282 . 146

(51.8%) , 136(48.2%) . 20

26 11 4

98(34.8%) 30 90(31.9%), 40 94(33.3%)

. 36(SD9.37) .

4 166(59.5%) , 64

(22.9%), 28(10%), 2 21(7.5%)

. KBS 78(27.9%),

MBC 79(28.2%), SBS 73(26.1%) 3

. YTN 31(11%), 19

(6.9%) . TV

57.50(S.D5.20) .

(2)

(

, 2007).

.

,

(, 2009; , 2005;

, 2007; , 2012; , 2005; Ohanian, 1990). 1

, , 3 ,

3( - , -

, - ) .

, ,

.2) 2

. ,

27

3 3

. 9 .

9

.3)

2

, 19 9

.

1,

3, 5, 7,

9 .

3, 5,

7, 9 .

(geometric mean)

.

2) (): , , : , , : TV , ,

3) : , , , : , , , , : , , , , , : , : : , : , : TV , : ,

28 11 4

(, 2008).

, AHP

(, 1998).

4.

. , 1

(39.2%) .

(33%), (27.8%)

.

2

.

(44.0%) ,

(32.3%), (23.7%) .

(44.4%), (40.7%), (14.9%)

. (38%) ,

(33.1%), (28.9%) .

, 1 2

, 12

(17.2%)

(14.7%) .

(13.4%), (12.6%)

29

1 2

(%) (%) (%)

39.2 1

44.0 1 17.2 1

23.7 3 9.3 6

32.3 2 12.6 4

()33.0 2

44.4 1 14.7 2

40.7 2 13.4 3

14.9 3 4.9 9

27.8 3

38.0 1 10.6 5

28.9 3 8.0 8

33.1 2 9.2 7

1. C.R: .028, .01, .092, .017

2. 1 2 .

1. (n282)

. , (4.9%)

.

(20, 30, 40

)

. 20 1

, (41.2%)

. (32.8%), (26.0%)

. 2

.

(39.4%) ,

30 11 4

(33.0%), (27.6%) .

(42.8%), (42.0%),

(15.2%)

. (39.2%)

, (33.0%), (27.8%) .

, 1 2

, 12

(16.2%)

(14.0%) .

(13.7%), (13.6%)

. , (5.0%)

.

30 1 ,

(42.1%) .

(32.6%), (25.3%)

. 2

.

(46.3%)

, (31.8%), (21.9%)

. (43.8%),

(40.8%), (15.3%)

.

(37.3%) , (33.2%),

(29.5%) .

1 2

31

, 12

(19.5%)

(14.3%) .

(13.4%), (13.3%)

. , (5.0%)

.

40 1 ,

(34.4%) .

(33.3%), (32.3%)

. 2

. (46.7%)

, (31.7%), (21.6%)

. (49.8%),

(36.1%), (14.1%)

.

(37.1%) , (33.2%),

(29.7%) .

, 1 2

, 12

(16.6%)

(16.1%) .

(12.0%) (12.0%),

(10.9%) .

(4.7%)

32

11

4

1 2

20 3040

20 30 40 20 30 40

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

41.2 1 42.1 1 33.4 1

39.4 1 46.3 1 46.7 1 16.2 1 19.5 1 16.1 2

27.6 3 21.9 3 21.6 3 11.4 5 9.2 6 7.4 8

33.0 2 31.8 2 31.7 2 13.6 4 13.4 3 10.9 5

()32.8 2 32.6 2 33.3 2

42.8 1 40.8 2 49.8 1 14.0 2 13.3 4 16.6 1

42.0 2 43.8 1 36.1 2 13.7 3 14.3 2 12.0 3

15.2 3 15.3 3 14.1 3 5.0 9 5.0 9 4.7 9

26.0 3 25.3 3 32.3 3

39.2 1 37.3 1 37.1 1 10.2 6 9.4 5 12.0 3

27.8 3 29.5 3 29.7 3 7.2 8 7.5 8 9.6 7

33.0 2 33.2 2 33.2 2 8.6 7 8.4 7 10.7 6

1. 20(n98): C.R: .05, .012, .03, .029

2. 30(n90): C.R: .062, .005, .136, .013

3. 40 (n94): C.R: .001, .017, .14, .011

4. 1 2 .

2.

33

.

5.

.

.

,

. TV

. AHP .

. 1

, (39.2%), (33.0%),

(27.8%) .

.

1(17.2%)

.

2012

34 11 4

. 2012 MBC ,

, , 2011

. KBS SBS

(, 2012. 10. 16).

36 9 8 ,

,

(, 2012. 11. 13).

.

,

.

2, 3

, (5), (7),

(8) .

,

(, 2005; ,

2005 ).

. 3

. ,

, ,

, ,

35

(, 2005. 3. 15).

,

.

, ,

, .

, .

(9)

.

. 1 ,

20 30

. 40 3

.

. , 20 30

SNS ,

, ,

. TV

.

, 40 SNS

,

,

36 11 4

.

1 2

. , ,

, .

20 , ,

. 30 ,

,

. 40 , ,

. ,

,

, ,

. ,

.

PC

TV

. ,

,

. (

, , ),

.

. ,

.

3 9 ,

.

37

, .

. ,

.

, .

.

38 11 4

(2005).

: . , 49 5,

147176.

(1990). TV. .

(2001).

. .

(2008). AHP .

, 17 1, 287312.

(2008). : AHP

. , 12 2, 5574.

(2003). TV . ,

8, 5279.

(2001). . , 6,

86110.

(2005). TV . , 11, 92111.

(2009). ,

. , 23 6,

87125.

(2009).

: . ,

20 2, 115135.

(2006). AHP . ,

71, 131151.

(2011).

: AHP.

, 22 3, 728.

39

(1994). AHP .

, 19 3.

(2005). TV . , 11, 92111.

(1998). TV .

, 10, 139165.

(2002). TV . ,

, 167193.

(2012. 11. 23). KBS .

.

(2009). :

. .

(2004). CATV () ,

, . , 15 5, 241256.

(2012). :

(AHP) . , 12 4,

263272.

(1994). .

(2005. 3. 15). ? . .

(2005). 3 TV :

. ,

, 213242.

(2012. 10. 16). MBC .

.

(2005). ,

, .

, 49 3, 153181.

(2002).

. , 46 4, 177216.

(2007).

40 11 4

: .

, 18 5, 191208.

(2008).

. ,

19 1, 736.

(2007).

. , 9 1, 139165.

(2009).

:

. , 59 3, 197220.

(2012). :

, . , 26

5, 193232.

(2009).

: . ,

10 1, 119159.

(2009). TV .

, 26 4, 173214.

(2006a).

. , 17 2, 83108.

(2006b). :

TV . , 8 4, 128166.

(2012. 11. 13). MBC 8 .. . .

(2005).

. , , 243262.

(2008. 8. 13). :

. CBS .

(2012. 11. 21). 8 ...MBC 7%-SBS 14%. .

(2007).

41

., 11 2, 159194.

(2000). TV

. .

(2004). .

, 18 4, 444478.

(2007).

. .

(2012. 10. 04). MBC , KBS 3 1 .

.

(2012). ,

, :

. , 26 4, 173214.

(2005). , ,

. , 6 2, 98135.

(2011). TV .

, 25 2, 159204.

(2012. 10. 27). 9 MBC, 42 .

.

(2009). : KBS

, MBC QI, SBS ASI . , 15 2,

369395.

(2010).

. , 54 5, 423468.

(2005). . : .

(2003). .

: .

(1998). Compatibility

. , 23 4, 131140.

(1974).

42 11 4

. , 11, 53117.

(2004). :

AHP. , 15 2, 7395.

(2007).

: .

, 51 6, 91110.

(2011). AHP :

. , 89, 155176.

(1999). TV .

, 44 1, 468488.

(2004). TV . ,

43 3, 161169.

(2007). :

, . , 8 1, 163180.

(2011. 02. 27). SBS, . .

(2007). CATV

: . , 21 1,

352388.

(2005). : ,

, . , 19

4, 644689.

Adams, W. J. (2000). How people watch television as investigated using focus group techniques. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(1), 7893.

Berlo, D. K., emert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 563576.

Conway, M. T. (2004). The visualizers: A reassessment of televisions news pioneers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas,

43

Austin.

Cooper, R. (1996). An expanded integrated model for determining audience exposure to television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37(1), 401418.

Davis, M. (2001). Adaptive AHP: A review of marketing applications with extensions. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 872893.

Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process. Management Science. 36(3), 249258.

Houlberg, R. (1984). Local television news audience and the para-social interaction. Journal of Broadcasting, 28(4), 423429.

Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635650.

Hutchinson, Kevion L. (1982). The effects of newscaster gender & vocal quality on perceptions of homophily and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 457.

Kenton, S. B. (1989). Speaker credibility in persuasive business communication: A model which explains gender difference. Journal of Business Communication, 26(2), 143157.

McDowell, W. S. (1988). Conceptualizing and measuring the effects of brand equity on television program rating performance. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, University of Florida.

McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233346). New York: Random House.

Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 3952.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill.

Saaty, T. L. (1990). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation (2nd ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.

44 11 4

Saaty T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2001). Model, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sanders, K. P., & Pritchett, M. (1971). Some influences of appearance on television newscaster appeal. Journal of Broadcasting, 15(2), 293301.

Steuer, R. E. (2003). Multiple criteria decision making combined with finance: A categorized bibliographic study. European Journal of Operational Research, 150(3), 496515.

Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 129.

Vargas, L. G. (1990). An overview of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 28.

Webster, J. G., & Wakshlag, J. J. (1985). A theory of television program choice. Communication Research, 10, 430446.

Zanakis, S., Mandakovic, T., Gupta, S., Sahay, S., & Hong, S. (1995). A review of program evaluation and fund allocation within the service and government sectors. Socio-Economic Planning Science, 29(1), 5979.

2013 05 30

2013 10 27

2013 10 30

45

A b s t r a c t

The Relative Importance and Priority of Decision Elements in TV News Programs Selection Process

Myung-Il ChoiPh. D. Assistant Professor, Dept. of Advertising and Public Relations, Namseoul University

Shin-Ae KimMaster Student, Dept. of Journalism and Mass Communication, Hanyang University

Mideum ChoiLecturer, Center for Integrated General Education, Hanyang University

There are high competitions among TV news programs and audiences can have a variety of selections on TV news because the number of TV news channels have been increased. Under this situation, it is critical for researchers to explore how and why the audiences make decisions for choosing TV news programs. By using AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), this study attempts to explore major factors (e.g., characteristics of news, news anchors, and channel brand) of the audiences on TV news selection.The results of this study suggest that, in the first-level, the audiences firstly consider elements of news (39.2%), followed by characteristics of news anchors (33.0%) and channel brand (27.8%). In the second-level, importance of news is the most important factor among elements of news, followed by fairness of news (32.3%) and interesting of news (23.7%). As the characteristics of news anchors, the audiences choose trustness of news anchors (44.4%) at the first, followed by professionalism of news anchors (40.7%) and attractiveness of news anchors (14.9%). For the channel brand, the audiences believe that channel image (38.0%) is the most important, followed by channel quality

46 11 4

(33.1%) and channel loyalty (28.9%).Compared all second-level factors, importance of news (17.2%) and trustness of news anchors (14.7%) are considered relatively important, while attractiveness of news anchors (4.9%) is relatively less important. There is no age difference on the first-level important factors for news selection; however, the second-level factors are differently considered according to age difference.

Key words AHP, relative importance, priority, news viewing, news programs

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Abstract