Abstract Competitions between the brands of the real estate commodity are intense. With regard to sales, the advertisement must bring into full play in the marketing situation which engages in hand-to-hand combat. Goal of the creativity person in message designs of the advertisement is trying to have the consumers sharing same feeling. Allow the advertising creativity has more accurate effect, the appeal strategy complement each other reduces the advertisement being invalid and waste. This research is aimed at the advertisement of the real estate. It is to discuss what level does combination influence of the advertising creativity and the advertising appeals have effect on the consumer¡¦s interest in product. There are two goals in this research, first is to discuss combination influence of the advertising creativity and the advertising appeal. How advertising creativity high-low level, different advertisement combinations of perceptual appeal and rational appeal show their effects. Second is to discuss how the consumer¡¦s interests are arisen from the advertisement combination of the advertising creativity and the advertising appeal. Through advertising creativity level, different advertisement combinations of perceptual appeal and rational appeal show their effects. To understand different interest degrees that the consumers have toward the product. This research uses experimentation and profound interview, to discuss how interest effect that the advertisement combination of the advertising creativity and the advertising appeal has on the consumers. In order to understand how these four variables affect the consumers in product results the varying degree of interests, the partial experimentation was designed to 12 groups of hypothesized board advertisements, through out prior consumers 4 groups of hypothesized board advertisements combinations were selected, carries on the official experimentation. There are 111 questionnaires returned, 99 are valid, effective returns-ratio is 89%. The material analysis adopts one way ANOVA analysis, finally conclude: 1.There are obviously differences toward trust attitude between four groups of different advertisements combinations. 2.There are obviously differences toward preference between four groups of different advertisements combinations. 3.The advertisement combination "High creativity - perception" effectively increase the consumer's interests surpasses "the low creativity-perception" the advertisement combination, "the high creativity-rationality" advertisement combination and "low creativity-rationality" advertisement combination.

Kreativitet är en av de viktigaste komponenterna i effektiv marknadsföring. Årligen anordnas hundratals branschtävlingar runt om i världen där de mest kreativa kommunikationsinsatserna belönas med priser. Dessa tävlingar har stort inflytande i branschen, men kritiseras även för att premiera nyskapande över andra faktorer trots att forskning visat att effektiv, kreativ reklam innehåller tre dimensioner: nyskapande, meningsfullhet och anknytning.Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka om denna kritik är applicerbar även på svenska kommunikationstävlingar, genom att studera i vilken utsträckning vinnare av kreativitetstävlingen Guldägget innehåller de olika kreativitetsdimensionerna.En kvantitativ enkätundersökning genomfördes där respondenter ur två olika grupper, yrkesverksamma respektive icke-yrkesverksamma inom kommunikationsbranschen, fick ta ställning till nio olika Guldägget-vinnande annonskampanjer. Resultatet baseras på de 198 inskickade enkätsvaren och indikerar att alla kreativitetsdimensionerna finns representerade, men att nivån av anknytning är lägre än övriga två. Tänkbara orsaker är att anknytning är mer subjektivt, att respondenterna inte ingick i annonsernas ursprungliga målgrupp samt att annonsernas ålder påverkat anknytningen negativt.Icke-yrkesverksamma tenderade att skatta meningsfullhet och anknytning lägre än yrkesverksamma inom branschen. Detta kan bero på yrkesverksamma är mer vana vid att analysera reklam, men begränsningar i urvalet gör att inga generella slutsatser kan dras. / Creativity is an essential component in advertising, and there are hundreds of advertising awards that honour the most creative concepts. These creativity awards are influential in the industry, but have received criticism for favouring novelty over other factors. Meanwhile, research shows that advertising creativity has three dimensions: novelty, meaningfulness and connectedness. This thesis investigates if Swedish creativity awards are guilty of the same misrepresentation, by studying which creativity dimensions can be found among winners of the Guldägget award.Respondents from two separate groups – workers in the advertising industry versus outside of the industry – participated in a quantitative survey, where their attitudes towards nine Guldägget-winning advertisements were measured. The results are based off 198 questionnaires and indicate that all dimensions are present. However, connectedness was rated lower than the rest. Possible reasons include connectedness being inherently more subjective, the respondents not being part of the original target group as well as the advertisements’ age having a negative impact.People from outside the advertising industry rated meaningfulness and connectedness lower than those in the industry. A possible reason is that industry people are more accustomed to analysing advertisements; however, shortcomings in the sample prevent general conclusions to be drawn.

每當承辦知名企業間因廣告行銷而發生不公平競爭的法律爭議時，作者最反覆思考的問題不外是：究竟一則比較廣告在什麼程度以內，與其他競爭對手間的產品比較以及資訊揭露，對消費者來說是最有利，而且對競爭者來說是最公平的？換句話說，就是使用「比較廣告」這樣的爭議性行銷方法，在什麼樣的限度內，是比較可以恰如其分地，一方面完成它原本行銷應達成的目的，帶給消費者充分且必要的消費資訊，另一方面也顧及了競爭法下的公平尺度，沒有用超過目的之手法損及競爭者；接著的問題是，現行國內的公平交易法規是不是已恰如其分地扮演了這樣一個尺度呢？ 　　基於以上目的，本研究分別從行銷管理、公平交易及主要國家競爭法立法例的觀點，廣泛探討相關文獻，切入檢視過去與比較廣告有關的研究，發現過去文獻對比較廣告展現創意的「不安全領域」和「安全領域」之探討，確實不足。故本文採用質性研究中的個案法及文件分析，藉由觀察公平會自1992年至2007年間的相關案例，選出指標案例共十二則，希望對透過實際個案之處分書或不處分書的解析，探討我國公平會對比較廣告違法性的認定標準，進一步釐清不法比較廣告與創意比較廣告的分際。 　　藉由觀察公平會對該十二個指標案例作成決定時所示的見解，本研究發現公平會對於其持以處分或不處分比較廣告的準則，已衍然成形。首先，如果一個比較廣告有「真實性原則」、「客觀性原則」或「資訊充分揭露原則」三原則中，任一原則的違反，導致成為一個不真實、不客觀或資訊未充分揭露（或兼具其中二者或三者）的比較廣告時，即已經存在「不法元素」，可能構成違法，此形成本研究之命題一。其次，公平會也明白宣示了比較廣告內容或方式的「安全區域」，本研究將此一發現名為公平會的「愈抽象愈安全原則」，並且認為此處即為比較廣告應該盡情展現創意之所在，此形成本研究之命題二。作者並盼望繼起的有志之士，往後能嘗試大膽建立各種假設，小心驗證本研究已經建立的兩項命題，以檢視其周延性和正確性，俾供企業未來在行銷上運用比較廣告時，能大膽展現創意，但又不致於違法的參考，同時亦對公平會及業者分別提出建議。 / Every time when Author undertakes unfair competition disputes between well-known enterprises arisen out of advertising and marketing, the question the Author will ponder over and over is: with respect to the comparative advertising, in terms of product comparison and information disclosure with other rivals, to which extent the comparative advertising will be the most beneficial advertising to the consumers and the most impartial advertising to the rivals. In other words, to which extent can “comparative advertising” be used appropriately, on one hand complete goals the original marketing was intended to achieve, bring sufficient and necessary consumption information to the consumers, on the other hand take into account of fairness criterion under competition law without application of technique beyond its original purpose which would cause damage to the rivals. Then the next question is: whether the existing Fair Trade Law has adequately set forth said criterion? Based on the above goals, from respective viewpoints in marketing management, fair trade and legislation precedent of competition laws of major countries, the author, through extensive probing into past documentary records and reviews of past researches related to comparative advertising, realized that researches on “unsafe territory” and “safe territory” to show creativity of comparative advertising in past documentary records are not sufficient. Therefore, the author has adopted case method and document analysis used in qualitative research. From among the relevant cases handled by the Fair Trade Commission between 1992 and 2007, the author has chosen twelve distinctive cases, aiming to probe into criterion for determination of violation of comparative advertising by Fair Trade Commission of the ROC, and further verification of the differences between unlawful comparative advertising and creative comparative advertising through study and analysis of disposition or non-disposition decision of each individual case. Upon review of administrative interpretations rendered by the Fair Trade Commission towards said twelve distinctive cases, the author realized that rules governing disposition of comparative advertising by the Fair Trade Commission has taken shape. First of all, when a comparative advertising breaches either the “principle of truthfulness”, the “principle of objectiveness” or the “principle of information disclosure”, the comparative advertising will become an unreal, non-objective or non-disclosed comparative advertising (or both or all), some “illegal elements” have occurred, which may constitute violation of law, this forms the first proposition of this thesis. Secondly, the Fair Trade Commission has clearly announced “safety areas” of content or manner of the comparative advertising, the author names this discovery as “more abstract more safe principle”, and believe this is the area where comparative advertising shall exert its best effort to show its creativity, which forms the second proposition of this thesis. The author expects that future researchers will be able to create hypotheses, examine and verify two propositions this thesis have already built up, in order to investigate its thoroughness and correctness, so that enterprises could bravely demonstrate its creativity when applying comparative advertising for the marketing.