No description available.

Internal Marketing is a strategy to reduce employee turnover and related high costs. It is a strategy of applying marketing philosophy and principles to people who serve the external customer so that the best possible people can be employed and retained, and so that they will do the best possible work. Many studies offer insights into the relationship between job satisfaction, and employee turnover. This study tries to use these variables to predict turnover intension and in order to offer possible solution to the problem of excessive turnover. The results found that all of the internal marketing practices, include training, management support, internal communication, personnel management and involvement in external communication have positive impact on job satisfaction,but negative impact on employee turnover intension.

Marketing has traditionally been understood from the perspective of marketing management. This causes problems when we study marketing practices because the normative discourse of marketing management is not particularly useful for describing the day-to-day work of marketing practitioners. This calls for marketing research from new perspectives. Rhetorical business – A study of marketing work in the spirit of contradiction investigates marketing work in professional service organizations from a rhetorical perspective. The overall research question – What do marketers do when they do marketing work? – is explored empirically through conversations, observations and daily interaction and argumentation with professionals involved in the marketing of consulting services. The rhetorical theory applied in the analysis builds on the assumption that every reasonable argument can be met with an equally reasonable counterargument, which is not only how we argue but also a representation of how we gain knowledge of the world – namely, by contradicting it. The analysis is organized in three themes – situation, strategy and subject – that address questions such as Where and when do marketers argue for business purposes? What rhetorical strategies are used?, and How can the subjects of marketing work be portrayed? This is followed by a discussion of the analysis under the two headings persuasive marketing talk and marketing work “in-between”. This book concludes that marketing work is accomplished by self-reflexive marketers who argue for business purposes in, through and in-between meetings as they employ versatile and expansive language and enact contradictory selves. In so concluding the book contributes a multifaceted account of marketing work beyond the framework of normative marketing management. It also shows how rhetorical theory can be used in marketing research to analyse aspects of marketing practice that would otherwise have been poorly accounted for. Finally, the book is written as a “confessional tale” by an author with long experience of marketing work, in the hope that it may encourage self-reflexive inquires among professionals involved in marketing.

由於生產技術日益精進，商品製造過程繁複，功能亦趨於複雜，導致商品潛在危險性昇高，加上產業結構多層化及行銷策略廣告化，以致責任體系模糊不清，而企業經營者更挾其鉅力萬鈞的經濟優勢，利用誇大不實的商業廣告，麻醉、鈍化消費者選購商品的能力，或因標示不實，欺騙、誤導消費者的認知，並產生種種危險，形成對於個人生命、身體、健康或財產上的威脅，造成消費者與企業經營者間的糾紛。由於企業經營者不但擁有雄厚人力、財力及資訊優勢，加上今日的生產過程，多具有高度技術性與高度複雜性，經濟上弱勢的消費者在私法體系中，無論在事前消費資訊獲得或事後爭議救濟過程上，並未擁有對等的地位，一旦在消費過程中遭遇到健康上或財產上的損害，很難循傳統之民事法律規範獲得有效救濟，也因為不容易獲得法律上的救濟，使得消費者對於維護自己的權益遭遇到困難，而怨聲四起。 因此先進國家無不以立法、司法及行政措施，來保護消費者應有之權利，透過政府公權力，提供一個便捷的管道，讓消費者得加以諮詢或申訴所遭遇到的消費爭議。台灣在消費者保護法（以下簡稱消保法）公布實施後，在立法上已經形成一個制度化的消費者保護體系，其中最特殊的就是設立消費者保護官（以下簡稱消保官）制度，當消費爭議發生時，透過申訴、調解程序，幫助消費者與企業經營者協商，以維護消費者之基本權益。 依北歐國家的法律規定，保護官（Ombudsman）指保護一般市民免受政治或行政權濫用之害，並為其權利守護神之官吏而言。北歐四國，即瑞典、挪威、丹麥及芬蘭，均只有一位消保官，且均為政府所任命，獨立行使職權，積極介入調查影響市場交易習慣之案件，以保護消費者權益，對良好市場交易習慣之建立，貢獻良多。瑞典係第一個成立消保官之國家，距今已有近40年之歷史，其雖僅有一位，然其位高、權重、受人敬重，主導整個國家之消費者政策及市場交易習慣，且整個消費者總署均為其輔佐幕僚。反觀我國，消保官設立至今已逾12年，然有關消保官之法規，除消保法之外，僅有消保官任用及職掌辦法、消保官執行職務應行注意事項、指揮消保官行使職權要點，是否符合行政程序法之規定，不無疑義。而各地方政府消保官之設置單位並不一致，有設於府本部，有設於法規會或法制室，亦有設於主秘室、建設局、企劃室或行政室等，此不僅反應消保官之定位不明，且導致消保官有將無兵，影響消費者保護工作之推展。目前包括中央及地方已有44位，行政上不僅無輔佐之幕僚人員，且須受上級長官之指揮監督，與北歐各國實不可同日而語。誠然兩者之任用資格及職掌並不完全相同，但會造成此種結果，實與整個國家之制度設計有相當大之關係。 本論文將先就北歐四國消保官設置之沿革、地位、運作、管轄、申訴及權限等作一簡介，其後論述我國消保官制度，俾比較兩者之異同，分析其優劣，以作為改進我國制度之參考。消保官之設置，既係消保法立法特色之一，亦為能否充分發揮保護消費者功能之主要關鍵所在。自第一位消保官就任以來，至今已逾12年，究竟消保官之制度與當初之設計是否吻合？該制度究竟是否有存在之必要？又如有存在之必要，是否有未盡完善之處？又如有未盡完善之處，究應如何改善？為期能有全盤及深入瞭解，爰就我國現行消保官制度之相關問題予以探討，並試擬消保官制度未來應發展之方向。