Narrative Content Formats and Marketing Communication Factors Influencing the Viewing Behavior of Paranormal Narrative Programs: A Case Study of The Ghost Radio
Keywords:
Narrative Content Formats, Marketing Communication Factors, Audience Viewing Behavior, Paranormal Narrative ProgramsAbstract
This study aimed to examine the narrative content formats and marketing communication factors influencing audience viewing behavior of The Ghost Radio. A quantitative research design was employed, using a questionnaire as the primary instrument. Based on Cochran’s formula, a sample of 400 respondents was determined. Data were analyzed using percentage, mean, standard deviation and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The findings revealed that most respondents were female, aged 19–25 years, with an income between 15,000 and 25,000 baht. Among the five types of narrative content, personal encounter narratives were the most preferred (M = 4.28), followed by locative/historical narratives (M = 4.10) and spiritual/ritual-related narratives (M = 3.98). Regarding marketing communication factors, production quality and technical aspects were rated highest (M = 4.35), followed by the host’s appeal (M = 4.32). Hypothesis testing indicated that all five types of narrative content were positively correlated with audience viewing behavior at the .01 significance level. Personal encounter narratives showed a strong positive correlation with viewing behavior (r = 0.703), while locative/historical and spiritual/ritual-related narratives demonstrated moderate correlations (r = 0.584 and r = 0.526, respectively). Similarly, all five marketing communication factors were significantly and positively associated with audience viewing behavior, with the host’s appeal (r = 0.691) and production quality (r = 0.639) showing strong correlations. Overall, the study highlights that both narrative content and marketing communication factors play a crucial role in shaping audience engagement with The Ghost Radio, particularly personal encounter narratives, which exhibited the strongest relationship with viewing behavior.
References
ประเสริฐ รุนรา. (2566). คนไทยกับการบูชาผี มองเรื่องผี ๆ ด้วยเลนส์นักคติชน. https://tu.ac.th/thammasat -201066-analyze-thai-people-and-ghost-worship.
พัชนี เชยจรรยา.(2558). การวิจัยเชิงปริมาณทางนิเทศศาสตร์. สำนักพิมพ์มหาวิทยาลัยสุโขทัยธรรมาธิราช.
พิทักษ์ ชูมงคล. (2563). วิจัยตราสินค้า (Brand research). สำนักพิมพ์จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
รุจฬ์สวัตต์ ครองภูมินทร์.(2564).อิทธิพลการมีปฏิสัมพันธ์แบบกึ่งมีส่วนร่วมทางสังคมที่มีผลต่อการสื่อสารในชีวิตประจำวัน.วารสารวิชาการศิลปะศาสตร์ประยุกต์, 14(1), 1-10.
ลภัสรดา รักมนุษย์.(2566). การวิเคราะห์เนื้อหาเรื่องเล่าในรายการเดอะโกสเรดิโอ. [วิทยานิพนธ์ วารสารศาสตรมหาบัณฑิตมหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์].
วิชิต บรมพิชัยชาติกุล.(2567). เปิดตำราวิทยาศาสตร์ เผยกลไกลับในสมอง ที่ทำให้เราเชื่อเรื่องผี. https://ngthai.com/science/74896/how-brain-working-with-ghost/.
Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A.(2018). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J.D.(2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publication.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H.(1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
Fisher, W. R. (1989). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. University of South Carolina Press.
Green, M. C., & Appel, M.(2024). Narrative transportation: How stories shape how we see ourselves and the world.In B. Gawronski (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.1–82). Academic Press.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C.(2000).The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721.
Green, M. C., Strange, J. J., & Brock, T. C. (2002). Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual.In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. (pp.19-32). Sage Publications.
Kliatchko, J. (2008).Revisiting the IMC construct: A revised definition and four pillars.International Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 133–160.
Kurtin, K. S., O’Brien, N., Roy, D., & Dam, L. (2018). The development of parasocial relationships on YouTube.The Journal of Social Media in Society,7(1),233–252.
Moyer-Gusé, E.(2008).Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407–425.
Pain, R.(2000).Place, social relations and the fear of crime: A review. Progress in Human Geography, 24(3),365–387.
Pain, R.(2009).Globalized fear? Towards an emotional geopolitics. Progress in Human Geography, 33(4),466–486.
Schultz, D. E., & Schultz, H. F. (2004). IMC: The next generation. McGraw-Hill.
SupaduDev. (2020). The psychology, geography, and architecture of horror: How places creep us out. Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture, 4(2), 47-62.
