1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 區塊鏈數位創作平台之採用因素與創新通路策略決策之研究：以社交媒體貼圖為例
The Research of Adoption Factors of Blockchain Digital Creativity Platform and Decision of Innovative Channel Policy: Using Social Media Sticker as an Example
作者 林湘霖
Lin, Shiang-Lin
貢獻者 楊亨利
Yang, Heng-Li
林湘霖
Lin, Shiang-Lin
關鍵詞 模糊分析層級程序法
決策實驗室分析法
模糊分析網路程序法
理想解類似度順序偏好法
通路策略
數位創作
貼圖
區塊鏈
FAHP
DENATEL
FANP
TOPSIS
Sales channel strategy
Digital creation
Sticker
Blockchain
日期 2020
上傳時間 1-Feb-2021 14:00:30 (UTC+8)
摘要 身處資訊與通信科技發達的數位時代，各行各業免不了須經歷數位化的洗禮，文化創意產業亦不例外，數位創作打破了過去透過視覺或聽覺來感受與欣賞實體創作的體驗，也開闢了數位內容產業這一全新的產業型態。而在眾多數位創作類型中，因行動社群及社交服務而嶄露頭角的貼圖，可謂是消費者最頻繁使用，甚至是每天都有機會接觸到的一種數位創作。
然而，目前市場上之貼圖平台管理模式，對於數位創作人而言相當封閉。此外，平台上的各種交易資訊十分不透明，諸多與交易與分潤有關的資訊，盡皆被貼圖平台把持，創作人更無從獲得這些信息。另一方面，創作人在完成貼圖創作後，又該如何確實為自己的作品確權與維權，乃至於合理與合法的授權，更是目前亟待解決的問題。為了改善上述問題，近年來已有越來越多因應數位內容產業之特性而問世的區塊鏈數位創作平台。因區塊鏈技術具有去中心化、資料不可篡改、交易可追溯、資訊透明性與匿名性等種種特性，特別適用於訊息封閉、資訊不對稱、參與者與中介方角色過多之貼圖產業。
本研究提出一虛構之「區塊鏈數位創作平台邏輯架構」，並以貼圖產業為例，進一步規劃了兩部份的研究。第一部份研究係以分析創作人「採用區塊鏈貼圖平台之考量要素」為研究標的，遴選適合之考量構面與因素來建置評估層級架構。之後，進行專家問卷訪談並透過FAHP法，分析創作人在考量採用區塊鏈貼圖平台時的重要考量要素；第二部份研究則根據所虛構之區塊鏈數位創作平台邏輯架構下可能衍生之貼圖經營模式，構思四組創新貼圖販售通路策略，並以探討創作人對「貼圖販售通路策略之決策」為研究標的，遴選適合作為各通路策略決策之評估構面與準則。而後，進行多回合專家問卷訪談，並應用DEMATEL、FANP搭配TOPSIS之混合式多準則決策方法，分析四組貼圖販售通路策略在各項評估準則下之優劣排序，以及為創作人找出最佳的通路策略。
本研究結果顯示，創作人在考量採用區塊鏈貼圖平台時認為，「創造異業合作機會」、「增加通路替代性」、「減少中間費用抽取」、「即時獲得分潤」及「自主合約簽訂」，是其認為重要性位居前5名的考量因素。而針對創作人對貼圖販售通路策略之決策分析結果顯示，「提升貼圖銷售利潤」、「提升貼圖銷售量」、「提升品牌於市場之佔有率」、「徵選優質的中間商」及「提高貼圖品牌知名度」，是重要性位居前5名的重要評估準則。此外，「貼圖獨家代理通路策略」是最為適合「資深」創作人的貼圖販售通路策略；而「貼圖多層次代理通路策略」則是最適合作為「資淺」貼圖創作人的貼圖販售通路策略。
Being in the digital era characterized by highly developed information and communication technologies, it is inevitable for all walks of life to experience the digital immersion. This is the same for the cultural creative industry. Digital creation not only breaks through the past experiences of people in feeling or enjoying the physical creation visually or auditorily, but also opens up the completely new digital content industry. Among a variety of types of digital creations, stickers, which emerged thanks to the mobile community and social service, are mostly frequently used by the consumers. Some consumers would even use this type of digital creation everyday.
For the digital creators, the management mode of the current sticker platforms in the market is relatively closed. Besides, a lot of information related to the transactions and profit sharing are completely dominated by the sticker platform operators, while the creators have no way of knowing them. Meanwhile, another problem that needs to be solved is what the creators can do to exactly ensure and maintain their ownership of the created stickers and to authorize the use of their stickers reasonably and legally. To improve the above problems, more and more blockchain platforms have been introduced into the market recently in response to the characteristics of the digital content industry. Since the blockchain technologies provide some characteristics, including decentralization, anti-counterfeiting, traceability of transactions, transparency of information, and anonymity, they are particularly suitable for use in the sticker industry that has closed information, asymmetric information and excessive participants and intermediary roles.
In this research, a fictional “logic framework of blockchain digital creativity platform” is proposed and, by using the sticker industry as an example, two parts of the research are further planned. In the first part of the research, the research objective is to analyze the “consideration elements” of the creators in the adoption of a blockchain sticker platform. Then, an expert interview questionnaire is conducted, and FAHP is used to analyze the consideration elements the creators think important in considering the adoption of the blockchain stacker platform. In the second part of the research, four groups of innovative sales channel policies for stickers are conceived based on the sticker operation modes that are possibly derived under the fictional logical framework of blockchain digital creativity platform used in this research; and the research objective of the second part of the research is to discuss the creators’ “decision on innovative sales channel policy for stickers”. Thereafter, multiple rounds of expert interview are conducted, and a hybrid MCDM that combines DEMATEL, FANP and TOPSIS is applied to analyze the ranking of the four groups of sticker sales channel policies under each of the evaluation criteria, so as to find out the best channel policy for the creators.
The results from this research indicate that the sticker creators think “create opportunities for cross-business cooperation”, “increase sales channel substitution”, “reduce intermediate cost”, “real-time profit sharing” and “autonomous contracting” are the top five important consideration factors in their adoption of the blockchain digital creativity platform. And, the results from the analysis of the creators’ decision on sales channel policy for stickers indicate that “upgrade sticker sales profit”, “upgrade sticker sales volume”, “upgrade brand market share”, “select superior middleman” and “upgrade sticker brand awareness” are the top five important evaluation criteria. In addition, the analysis results also indicate that “sticker exclusive agency” is the sticker sales channel policy most suitable for the “senior” creators, while “sticker multi-level agency” is the sticker sales channel policy most suitable for the “junior” sticker creators.
參考文獻 1. 吳偉光，(2008)，數字技術環境下的版權法，北京：知識產權出版社。
2. 李家豪、郭原昌，(2019)，使用者經驗對LINE貼圖傳達價值之購買意願研究，設計與環境學報，第20卷, 33-52頁。
3. 沙建軍，(2021)，企業就是自媒體：掌握內容行銷大趨勢，打造直通顧客的策略與方法，新北市：有方文化。
4. 林岳甫，(2014)，數位音樂下載與串流之滿意度與購買意願-以iTunes與KKbox為例，未出版碩士論文，淡江大學大眾傳播學系碩士班。
5. 林怡芯、呂英瑞，(2017)，應用兩階段賽局探討通路合作契約對數位音樂市場之影響，商略學報，第9卷，第2期, 89-102頁。
6. 林柏君，(2018)，我國數位內容及體感科技產業發展概況分析，經濟前瞻，第178卷，51-55頁。
7. 林洲富，(2017)，著作權法-案例式，臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
8. 林湘霖，(2012)，數位學習系統活動流程評估準則之建置：應用模糊層級分析法與關聯法則，未出版碩士論文，國立臺北科技大學資訊與運籌管理研究所。
9. 林湘霖、王貞淑，(2015)，結合模糊層級分析法與關聯法則建構數位學習系統活動流程評估準則，管理與系統，第22卷，第1期，125-147頁。
10. 財團法人資訊工業策進會，(2006)，臺灣數位內容產業白皮書，臺北市：經濟部工業局。
11. 郭英峰、田子弘，(2017)，LINE企業貼圖類型對於廣告效果之影響，資訊管理學報，第24卷，第4期，455-483頁。
12. 陳勁甫、蕭玉華，(2008)，國際會議地點選址評估模式之研究─模糊AHP法之應用，環境與管理研究，第9卷，第1期，1-20頁。
13. 陳郁秀，(2005)，創意島嶼狂想曲-2050願景台灣，臺北市：遠流出版社。
14. 程勝美，(2018)，插畫應用於APP貼圖之行銷模式研究，中華印刷科技年報， 334-367頁。
15. 經濟部工業局，(2016)，109Taiwan數位內容產業年鑑，臺北市：經濟部工業局。
16. 經濟部工業局，(2019)，108Taiwan數位內容產業年鑑，臺北市：經濟部工業局。
17. 經濟部工業局，(2020)，109Taiwan數位內容產業年鑑，臺北市：經濟部工業局。
18. 廖千禎，(2008)，數位內容素材授權於衍生性商品設計之研究-以動畫為例，未出版碩士論文，銘傳大學設計管理研究所碩士在職專班。
19. 廖淑婷，(2016)，[貼近你心]—貼圖行銷對品牌與購買意願之影響，未出版碩士論文，國立中山大學行銷傳播管理研究所。
20. 劉俞佑，(2019)，從區塊鏈運用論數位音樂經營模式之變革，未出版碩士論文，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所。
21. 鄧振源、曾國雄，(1989)，層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上)，國統計學報，第27卷，第6期，5-22頁。
22. 賴文智，(2012)，著作權一點通，臺北市：經濟部智慧財產局。
23. 謝銘洋，(2017)，數位內容之著作權基本問題及侵權，台北市：中華民國政府出版品。
24. Aguiar, L., & Martens, B., (2016). Digital music consumption on the internet: evidence from clickstream data, Information Economics and Policy, 34, 27-43.
25. Angelis, J., & da Silva, E. R., (2019). Blockchain adoption: A value driver perspective, Business Horizons, 62(3), 307-314.
26. Bai, C., & Sarkis, J., (2013). A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical success factors, International Journal of Production Economics, 146(1), 281-292.
27. Bashir, I., (2018). Mastering blockchain: Distributed ledger technology, decentralization, and smart contracts explained, 2nd ed., Birmingham: Packt Publishing Ltd.
28. Buckley, J. J., (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233-247.
29. Buede, D. M., & Maxwell, D. T., (1995). Rank disagreement: A comparison of multi-criteria methodologies, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 4(1), 1-21.
30. Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G., (2012). A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3000-3011.
31. Cai, Z., (2020). Usage of deep learning and blockchain in compilation and copyright protection of digital music, IEEE Access, 8, 164144-164154.
32. Chan, F. T. S., & Kumar, N., (2007). Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach, Omega, 35(4), 417-431.
33. Chang, D. Y., (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649-655.
34. Chang, Y., Iakovou, E., & Shi, W., (2019). Blockchain in global supply chains and cross border trade: A critical synthesis of the state-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities, International Journal of Production Research, 1-18.
35. Chen, Y. C., Lien, H. P., & Tzeng, G H., (2010). Measures and evaluation for environment watershed plans using a novel hybrid MCDM model, Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2), 926-938.
36. Cheng, S., Chan, C. W., & Huang, G. H., (2002). Using multiple criteria decision analysis for supporting decisions of solid waste management, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 37(6), 975-990.
37. Chiu, W. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & Li, H. L., (2013). A new hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR to improve e-store business, Knowledge-Based Systems, 37, 48-61.
38. Chou, Y. C., Sun, C. C., & Yen, H. Y., (2012). Evaluating the criteria for human resource for science and technology (HRST) based on an integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL approach, Applied Soft Computing, 12(1), 64-71.
39. Crosby, M., Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., & Kalyanaraman, V., (2016). Blockchain technology: Beyond Bitcoin, Applied Innovation, 2, 6-10.
40. De Filippi, P., (2016). The interplay between decentralization and privacy: The case of blockchain technologies, Journal of Peer Production, 7, 1-18.
41. Di Ciccio, C., Cecconi, A., Mendling, J., Felix, D., Haas, D., Lilek, D., Riek, F., Rumpl, A., & Uhlig, P., (July, 2018). Blockchain-based traceability of inter-organisational business processes, In proceedings of International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design (MNSD 2018), Vienna, Austria.
42. Ehrgott, M., Klamroth, K., & Schwehm, C., (2004). An MCDM approach to portfolio optimization, European Journal of Operational Research, 155(3), 752-770.
43. Fernández-Caramés, T. M., & Fraga-Lamas, P., (2019). A review on the application of blockchain to the next generation of cybersecure industry 4.0 smart factories, IEEE Access, 7, 45201-45218.
44. Fleischer, R., (2017). If the song has no price, is it still a commodity?: Rethinking the commodification of digital music, Culture Unbound, 9(2), 146-162.
45. Fontela, E., & Gabus, A., (1976). Current perceptions of the world problematique. world modeling: A dialogue, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Oxford.
46. Ge, J., & Gretzel, U., (2018). Emoji rhetoric: A social media influencer perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(15-16), 1272-1295.
47. González-Rojas, O., Correal, D., & Camargo, M., (2016). ICT capabilities for supporting collaborative work on business processes within the digital content industry, Computers in Industry, 80, 16-29.
48. Goodman, R., (1988). Introduction to stochastic models, 1st ed., New York: Dover Publications.
49. Guo, L., & Meng, X., (2015). Digital content provision and optimal copyright protection, Management Science, 61(5), 1183-1196.
50. Hasan, H. R., & Salah, K., (2018). Proof of delivery of digital assets using blockchain and smart contracts, IEEE Access, 6, 65439-65448.
51. Hofmann, F., Wurster, S., Ron, E., & Böhmecke-Schwafert, M., (November, 2017). The immutability concept of blockchains and benefits of early standardization, In proceedings of 2017 ITU Kaleidoscope: Challenges for a Data-Driven Society, Nanjing, China.
52. Holliman, G., & Rowley, J. (2014). Business to business digital content marketing: marketers’ perceptions of best practice, Journal of research in interactive marketing, 8(4), 269-293.
53. Hsu, C. H., Wang, F. K., & Tzeng, G. H., (2012). The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 66, 95-111.
54. Hung, Y. H., Chou, S. C., & Tzeng, G. H., (2011). Knowledge management adoption and assessment for SMEs by a novel MCDM approach, Decision Support Systems, 51(2), 270-291.
55. Hwang, C. L., Lai, Y. J., & Liu, T. Y., (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making, Computers & Operations Research, 20(8), 889-899.
56. Jeppsson, A., & Olsson, O., (2017). Blockchains as a solution for traceability and transparency, Lund, Sweden: Lund University.
57. Jirgensons, M., & Kapenieks, J., (2018). Blockchain and the future of digital learning credential assessment and management, Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(1), 145-156.
58. Kamath, R., (2018). Food traceability on blockchain: Walmart’s pork and mango pilots with IBM, The Journal of the British Blockchain Association, 1(1), 3712.
59. Kang, D., & Park, Y., (2014). Review-based measurement of customer satisfaction in mobile service: Sentiment analysis and VIKOR approach, Expert Systems with Applications, 41(4), 1041-1050.
60. Khaw, L. T., (1994). Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), Faculty of Law, University of Malaya.
61. Konrad, A., Herring, S. C., & Choi, D., (2020). Sticker and emoji use in Facebook messenger: Implications for graphicon change, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(3), 217-235.
62. Lee, C. W., & Guo, J. M., (2017). Exploring the advertising effect of enterprise-sponsored LINE stickers, Journal of Advanced Engineering, 12(2), 105-111.
63. Lee, H. I., Chen, W. C., & Chang, C. J., (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan, Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 96–107.
64. Lee, Y. C., (2017). Effects of branded e-stickers on purchase intentions: The perspective of social capital theory, Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 397-411.
65. Li, X., Jiang, P., Chen, T., Luo, X., & Wen, Q., (2020). A survey on the security of blockchain systems, Future Generation Computer Systems, 107, 841-853.
66. Liao, S. H., & Hsu, S. Y., (2019). Big data analytics for investigating Taiwan LINE sticker social media marketing, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 32(2), 589-606.
67. Lim, S. S., (2015). On stickers and communicative fluidity in social media, Social Media+ Society, 1(1), 1-3.
68. Lin, C., He, D., Huang, X., Choo, K. K. R., & Vasilakos, A. V., (2018). BSeIn: A blockchain-based secure mutual authentication with fine-grained access control system for industry 4.0, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 116, 42-52.
69. Liu, S. F., Liu, H. H., Chang, J. H., & Chou, H. N., (2019). Analysis of a new visual marketing craze: The effect of LINE sticker features and user characteristics on download willingness and product purchase intention, Asia Pacific Management Review, 24(3), 263-277.
70. Lu, Q., & Xu, X., (2017). Adaptable blockchain-based systems: A case study for product traceability, IEEE Software, 34(6), 21-27.
71. Ma, Z., Jiang, M., Gao, H., & Wang, Z., (2018). Blockchain for digital rights management, Future Generation Computer Systems, 89, 746-764.
72. MacCrimmon, K. R., (1973). An overview of multiple objective decision making, University of South Carolina Press, Colombia.
73. Makczewski, J., (1999). GIS and multicriteria decision analysis, New Jersey: Wiley.
74. Meade, L. M., & Presley, A., (2002). R&D project selection using the analytic network process, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(1), 59-66.
75. Nakamoto, S., (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system, Available: http://bitcoin. org/bitcoin.pdf.
76. Nikou, S., & Mezei, J., (2013). Evaluation of mobile services and substantial adoption factors with analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Telecommunications Policy, 37(10), 915-929.
77. Nizamuddin, N., Hasan, H., Salah, K., & Iqbal, R., (2019). Blockchain-based framework for protecting author royalty of digital assets, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 44(4), 3849-3866.
78. Novak, P. K., Smailović, J., Sluban, B., & Mozetič, I. (2015). Sentiment of emojis, PloS one, 10(12), 1-21.
79. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H., (2004), Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445-455.
80. Pasala, S., Pavani, V., Lakshmi, G. V., & Narayana, V. L., (2020). Identification of attackers using blockchain transactions using cryptography methods, Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(6), 368-375.
81. Puthal, D., Malik, N., Mohanty, S. P., Kougianos, E., & Yang, C., (2018). The Blockchain as a decentralized security framework [future directions], IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 7(2), 18-21.
82. Rahimi, S., Gandy, L., & Mogharreban, N., (2007). A web-based high-performance multicriteria decision support system for medical diagnosis, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(10), 1083-1099.
83. Rastogi, V., & Kushwaha, P., (2019). Success and failure of digital money and virtual money: Case of cryptocurrency-bitcoin, IME Journal, 13(1), 74-81.
84. Raval, S., (2016). Decentralized applications: Harnessing bitcoin`s blockchain technology, 1st., California: O`Reilly Media Inc.
85. Ruangkanjanases, A., & Wutthisith, M., (2017). Factors influencing intention to purchase stickers in a messaging application: A comparative study between male and female customers in thailand, Advanced Science Letters, 23(1), 634-639.
86. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G., (1982). The logic of priorities: Applications in business, energy, health, and transportation, 2nd., Netherlands: Springer.
87. Saaty, T. L., (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281.
88. Saaty, T. L., (1980). The Analytic hierarchy process, New York: McGraw-Hill.
89. Saaty, T. L., (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26.
90. Saaty, T. L., (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process, 1st., Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
91. Saaty, T. L., (2001). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process, 2nd., Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
92. Saaty, T. L., (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
93. Salah, K., Rehman, M. H. U., Nizamuddin, N., & Al-Fuqaha, A., (2019). Blockchain for AI: Review and open research challenges, IEEE Access, 7, 10127-10149.
94. Sampietro, A., (2019). Emoji and rapport management in Spanish WhatsApp chats, Journal of Pragmatics, 143, 109-120.
95. Stuermer, M., Abu-Tayeh, G., & Myrach, T., (2017). Digital sustainability: Basic conditions for sustainable digital artifacts and their ecosystems, Sustainability science, 12(2), 247-262.
96. Shee, D. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & Tang, T. I., (2003). AHP, fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral approaches for the appraisal of information service providers in Taiwan, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 6(1), 8-30.
97. Shyur, H. J., & Shih, H. S., (2006). A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 44(7), 749-761.
98. Sikorski, J. J., Haughton, J., & Kraft, M., (2017). Blockchain technology in the chemical industry: Machine-to-machine electricity market, Applied Energy, 195, 234-246.
99. Subramanya, S. R., & Yi, B. K., (2006). Digital rights management, IEEE Potentials, 25(2), 31-34.
100. Swan, M., (2015). Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy, 1st., Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
101. Szabo, N., 1994, Smart contracts, Working paper, Available: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart.contracts.html.
102. Tang, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2019). Emoticon, emoji, and sticker use in computer-mediated communication: A review of theories and research findings, International Journal of Communication, 13, 27.
103. Tapscott, A., & Tapscott, D., (2017). How blockchain is changing finance, Harvard Business Review, 1(9), 2-5.
104. Tsai, H. H., Lee, H. Y., & Yu, H. C., (2008). Developing the digital content industry in Taiwan, Review of policy Research, 25(2), 169-188.
105. Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J., (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications, 1st., William Hall: Chapman & Hall.
106. Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W., (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL, Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028-1044.
107. Van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrcyz, W., (1983). A Fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3), 229-241.
108. Vernik, D. A., Purohit, D., & Desai, P. S., (2011). Music downloads and the flip side of digital rights management, Marketing Science, 30(6), 1011-1027.
109. Viriyasitavat, W., Da Xu, L., Bi, Z., & Sapsomboon, A., (2018). Blockchain-based business process management (BPM) framework for service composition in industry 4.0, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1-12.
110. Wang, C. S., & Lin, S. L., (2019). How instructors evaluate an e-learning system? An evaluation model combining fuzzy AHP with association rule mining, Journal of Internet Technology, 20(6), 1947-1959.
111. Wang, C. S., Yang, H. L., & Lin, S. L., (2015). To make good decision: A group DSS for multiple criteria alternative rank and selection, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, 1-15.
112. Wang, S. S., (2016). More than words? The effect of LINE character sticker use on intimacy in the mobile communication environment, Social Science Computer Review, 34(4), 456-478.
113. Wang, Y. L., & Tzeng, G. H., (2012). Brand marketing for creating brand value based on a MCDM model combining DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR methods, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 5600-5615.
114. Wu, W., (2008). Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach, Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 828-835.
115. Yang, H. L., & Lin, S. L. (2019). Applying fuzzy AHP to analyse the critical factors of adopting SoLoMo services, International Journal of Mobile Communications, 17(4), 483-511.
116. Yang, H. L., & Lin, S. L., (2017). The evaluation factors of adopting SoLoMo services: The hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach, Service Business, 11(3), 601-629.
117. Yang, J. L., & Tzeng, G. H., (2011). An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1417-1424.
118. Yeh, C. C., (2017). Using a hybrid model to evaluate development strategies for digital content, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 23(6), 795-809.
119. Yoon, K., (1987). A reconciliation among discrete compromise solutions, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38(3), 277-286.
120. Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H. N., Chen, X., & Wang, H., (2018). Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey, International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 14(4), 352-375.
121. Zimmermann, H. J., (2011). Fuzzy Set Theory—and its Applications, 4th., Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
122. Lee, J. Y., Hong, N., Kim, S., Oh, J., & Lee, J., (September, 2016). Smiley face: Why we use emoticon stickers in mobile messaging, In proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct New York, NY, USA.
123. Hunjak, T., & Jakovčević, D., (August, 2001). AHP based model for bank performance evaluation and rating, In proceedings of 6th International Symposium on Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP 2001), Berne, Switzerland.
124. Alkabani, Y., Koushanfar, F., & Potkonjak, M., (November, 2007). Remote activation of ICs for piracy prevention and digital right management, In proceedings of 2007 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD07), San Jose California, U.S.A.
125. Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., & Wang, H., (June, 2017). An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends, In proceeding of IEEE International Congress on Big Data (IEEE BigData 2017), Boston, MA, USA.
126. Bhowmik, D., & Feng, T., (August, 2017). The multimedia blockchain: A distributed and tamper-proof media transaction framework. In proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Digital Signal Processing (DSP 2017), London, UK.
127. Manohar, A., & Briggs, J., (April, 2018). Identity management in the age of blockchain 3.0, In proceedings of 2018 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2018), Montreal, Canada.
128. Landerreche, E., & Stevens, M., (May, 2018). On immutability of blockchains, In proceedings of 1st ERCIM-Blockchain 2018, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
129. Zhao, S., & O`Mahony, D., (December, 2018). BMCProtector: A blockchain and smart contract based application for music copyright protection, In proceedings of the International Conference on Blockchain Technology and Application (ICBTA 2018), New York, NY, USA.
130. Chen, L. M., Guan, S. P., & Du, R. R., (June, 2019). Study on copyright protection path of music from the perspective of blockchain technology, In proceedings of 6th International Conference on Management Science and Management Innovation (MSMI 2019), Changsha, China.
131. Rizal Batubara, F., Ubacht, J., & Janssen, M., (June, 2019). Unraveling transparency and accountability in blockchain, In proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2019), Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
132. Kim, S. G., (2018). A study on the blockchain 2.0 ethereum platform analysis for dApp development, The Journal of Korea Institute of Information, Electronics, and Communication Technology, 11(6), 718-723.
133. Ulieru, M., (2016). Blockchain 2.0 and beyond: Adhocracies. In Banking Beyond Banks and Money (pp. 297-303). Springer, Cham.
134. Yang, W., Garg, S., Raza, A., Herbert, D., & Kang, B., (August, 2018). Blockchain: Trends and future, In proceedings of Pacific Rim Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (PKAW 2018), Nanjing, China.
描述 博士
國立政治大學
資訊管理學系
102356505
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102356505
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 楊亨利zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Yang, Heng-Lien_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林湘霖zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lin, Shiang-Linen_US
dc.creator (作者) 林湘霖zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Lin, Shiang-Linen_US
dc.date (日期) 2020en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Feb-2021 14:00:30 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Feb-2021 14:00:30 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Feb-2021 14:00:30 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0102356505en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133846-
dc.description (描述) 博士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 資訊管理學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 102356505zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 身處資訊與通信科技發達的數位時代，各行各業免不了須經歷數位化的洗禮，文化創意產業亦不例外，數位創作打破了過去透過視覺或聽覺來感受與欣賞實體創作的體驗，也開闢了數位內容產業這一全新的產業型態。而在眾多數位創作類型中，因行動社群及社交服務而嶄露頭角的貼圖，可謂是消費者最頻繁使用，甚至是每天都有機會接觸到的一種數位創作。
然而，目前市場上之貼圖平台管理模式，對於數位創作人而言相當封閉。此外，平台上的各種交易資訊十分不透明，諸多與交易與分潤有關的資訊，盡皆被貼圖平台把持，創作人更無從獲得這些信息。另一方面，創作人在完成貼圖創作後，又該如何確實為自己的作品確權與維權，乃至於合理與合法的授權，更是目前亟待解決的問題。為了改善上述問題，近年來已有越來越多因應數位內容產業之特性而問世的區塊鏈數位創作平台。因區塊鏈技術具有去中心化、資料不可篡改、交易可追溯、資訊透明性與匿名性等種種特性，特別適用於訊息封閉、資訊不對稱、參與者與中介方角色過多之貼圖產業。
本研究提出一虛構之「區塊鏈數位創作平台邏輯架構」，並以貼圖產業為例，進一步規劃了兩部份的研究。第一部份研究係以分析創作人「採用區塊鏈貼圖平台之考量要素」為研究標的，遴選適合之考量構面與因素來建置評估層級架構。之後，進行專家問卷訪談並透過FAHP法，分析創作人在考量採用區塊鏈貼圖平台時的重要考量要素；第二部份研究則根據所虛構之區塊鏈數位創作平台邏輯架構下可能衍生之貼圖經營模式，構思四組創新貼圖販售通路策略，並以探討創作人對「貼圖販售通路策略之決策」為研究標的，遴選適合作為各通路策略決策之評估構面與準則。而後，進行多回合專家問卷訪談，並應用DEMATEL、FANP搭配TOPSIS之混合式多準則決策方法，分析四組貼圖販售通路策略在各項評估準則下之優劣排序，以及為創作人找出最佳的通路策略。
本研究結果顯示，創作人在考量採用區塊鏈貼圖平台時認為，「創造異業合作機會」、「增加通路替代性」、「減少中間費用抽取」、「即時獲得分潤」及「自主合約簽訂」，是其認為重要性位居前5名的考量因素。而針對創作人對貼圖販售通路策略之決策分析結果顯示，「提升貼圖銷售利潤」、「提升貼圖銷售量」、「提升品牌於市場之佔有率」、「徵選優質的中間商」及「提高貼圖品牌知名度」，是重要性位居前5名的重要評估準則。此外，「貼圖獨家代理通路策略」是最為適合「資深」創作人的貼圖販售通路策略；而「貼圖多層次代理通路策略」則是最適合作為「資淺」貼圖創作人的貼圖販售通路策略。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Being in the digital era characterized by highly developed information and communication technologies, it is inevitable for all walks of life to experience the digital immersion. This is the same for the cultural creative industry. Digital creation not only breaks through the past experiences of people in feeling or enjoying the physical creation visually or auditorily, but also opens up the completely new digital content industry. Among a variety of types of digital creations, stickers, which emerged thanks to the mobile community and social service, are mostly frequently used by the consumers. Some consumers would even use this type of digital creation everyday.
For the digital creators, the management mode of the current sticker platforms in the market is relatively closed. Besides, a lot of information related to the transactions and profit sharing are completely dominated by the sticker platform operators, while the creators have no way of knowing them. Meanwhile, another problem that needs to be solved is what the creators can do to exactly ensure and maintain their ownership of the created stickers and to authorize the use of their stickers reasonably and legally. To improve the above problems, more and more blockchain platforms have been introduced into the market recently in response to the characteristics of the digital content industry. Since the blockchain technologies provide some characteristics, including decentralization, anti-counterfeiting, traceability of transactions, transparency of information, and anonymity, they are particularly suitable for use in the sticker industry that has closed information, asymmetric information and excessive participants and intermediary roles.
In this research, a fictional “logic framework of blockchain digital creativity platform” is proposed and, by using the sticker industry as an example, two parts of the research are further planned. In the first part of the research, the research objective is to analyze the “consideration elements” of the creators in the adoption of a blockchain sticker platform. Then, an expert interview questionnaire is conducted, and FAHP is used to analyze the consideration elements the creators think important in considering the adoption of the blockchain stacker platform. In the second part of the research, four groups of innovative sales channel policies for stickers are conceived based on the sticker operation modes that are possibly derived under the fictional logical framework of blockchain digital creativity platform used in this research; and the research objective of the second part of the research is to discuss the creators’ “decision on innovative sales channel policy for stickers”. Thereafter, multiple rounds of expert interview are conducted, and a hybrid MCDM that combines DEMATEL, FANP and TOPSIS is applied to analyze the ranking of the four groups of sticker sales channel policies under each of the evaluation criteria, so as to find out the best channel policy for the creators.
The results from this research indicate that the sticker creators think “create opportunities for cross-business cooperation”, “increase sales channel substitution”, “reduce intermediate cost”, “real-time profit sharing” and “autonomous contracting” are the top five important consideration factors in their adoption of the blockchain digital creativity platform. And, the results from the analysis of the creators’ decision on sales channel policy for stickers indicate that “upgrade sticker sales profit”, “upgrade sticker sales volume”, “upgrade brand market share”, “select superior middleman” and “upgrade sticker brand awareness” are the top five important evaluation criteria. In addition, the analysis results also indicate that “sticker exclusive agency” is the sticker sales channel policy most suitable for the “senior” creators, while “sticker multi-level agency” is the sticker sales channel policy most suitable for the “junior” sticker creators.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 謝辭 I
中文摘要 III
Abstract V
目 次 VII
表次 XI
圖次 XIV
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機 4
第三節 研究目的 6
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 數位內容產業 9
2.1.1 數位內容產業現況 9
2.1.2 貼圖產業沿革與發展 10
2.1.3 貼圖事業經營模式 12
2.1.4 貼圖產業營運困境 13
2.1.5 數位內容產業研究現況 16
第二節 區塊鏈 18
2.2.1 區塊鏈發展 18
2.2.2 區塊鏈類型 20
2.2.3 區塊鏈核心技術 23
第三節多準則決策方法 27
2.3.1 模糊分析層級程序法 28
2.3.2 分析網路程序法 32
2.3.3 決策實驗室分析法 33
2.3.4 理想解類似度順序偏好法 35
第三章 研究方法 38
第一節 研究架構 38
第二節 區塊鏈數位創作平台邏輯架構 41
3.2.1 創新區塊鏈數位創作平台邏輯架構 41
3.2.2 區塊鏈貼圖創作平台營運模式 48
第三節 區塊鏈數位創作平台採用評估 51
3.3.1 平台採用考量要素選擇 51
3.3.2 建置評估層級架構 55
第四節 貼圖販售通路策略評估 56
3.4.1 貼圖販售通路策略 56
3.4.2 貼圖販售通路策略決策評估要素選擇 62
3.4.3 建置評估層級架構 64
第四章 問卷訪談與分析 66
第一節 問卷設計與訪談 66
4.1.1 問卷設計 66
4.1.2 專家問卷施測流程 68
4.1.3 情境假設 69
4.1.4 問卷樣本描述性統計分析 71
第二節 平台採用考量要素分析 73
4.2.1 考量要素之相對重要性 73
4.2.2 考量因素之重要性排序 75
4.2.3 考量因素之專家群組分析 76
第三節 販售通路策略與評估要素分析 78
4.3.1 評估準則之相互影響關係 78
4.3.2 建置評估網路架構 82
4.3.3 評估要素之相對重要性 83
4.3.4 評估準則之重要性排序 87
4.3.5 評估準則之專家群組分析 94
第四節 最佳販售通路策略決策 95
4.4.1 建立通路策略決策矩陣 95
4.4.2 正負理想解與最佳通路策略 99
第五節 販售通路策略敏感度分析 103
4.5.1 販售量與利潤敏感度分析 103
4.5.2 貼圖創作薪資敏感度分析 105
第五章 結果探討 110
第一節 區塊鏈貼圖平台考量要素探討 110
5.1.1 平台採用重要構面探討 110
5.1.2 平台採用關鍵考量因素探討 111
第二節 貼圖販售通路策略決策探討 113
5.2.1 通路策略決策評估準則相互影響關係探討 113
5.2.2 通路策略決策關鍵評估要素探討 114
5.2.3 通路策略優劣決策探討 116
5.2.4 通路策略敏感度分析探討 119
第六章 結論 122
第一節 學術意涵 122
第二節 實務意涵 123
第三節 研究限制 127
第四節 未來研究與展望 128
參考文獻 130
附錄 A: 考量因素及評估準則重要性問卷 141
附錄 B: 各問卷施測階段專家問卷 143
【第一階段：考量要素成對比較問卷】 144
【第二階段：評估準則直接關係問卷】 150
【第三階段：評估要素成對比較問卷】 151
【第四階段：通路策略優勢成對比較問卷】 167		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 10081015 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102356505en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 模糊分析層級程序法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 決策實驗室分析法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 模糊分析網路程序法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 理想解類似度順序偏好法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 通路策略zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 數位創作zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 貼圖zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 區塊鏈zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) FAHPen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) DENATELen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) FANPen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) TOPSISen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Sales channel strategyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Digital creationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Stickeren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Blockchainen_US
dc.title (題名) 區塊鏈數位創作平台之採用因素與創新通路策略決策之研究：以社交媒體貼圖為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Research of Adoption Factors of Blockchain Digital Creativity Platform and Decision of Innovative Channel Policy: Using Social Media Sticker as an Exampleen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. 吳偉光，(2008)，數字技術環境下的版權法，北京：知識產權出版社。
2. 李家豪、郭原昌，(2019)，使用者經驗對LINE貼圖傳達價值之購買意願研究，設計與環境學報，第20卷, 33-52頁。
3. 沙建軍，(2021)，企業就是自媒體：掌握內容行銷大趨勢，打造直通顧客的策略與方法，新北市：有方文化。
4. 林岳甫，(2014)，數位音樂下載與串流之滿意度與購買意願-以iTunes與KKbox為例，未出版碩士論文，淡江大學大眾傳播學系碩士班。
5. 林怡芯、呂英瑞，(2017)，應用兩階段賽局探討通路合作契約對數位音樂市場之影響，商略學報，第9卷，第2期, 89-102頁。
6. 林柏君，(2018)，我國數位內容及體感科技產業發展概況分析，經濟前瞻，第178卷，51-55頁。
7. 林洲富，(2017)，著作權法-案例式，臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
8. 林湘霖，(2012)，數位學習系統活動流程評估準則之建置：應用模糊層級分析法與關聯法則，未出版碩士論文，國立臺北科技大學資訊與運籌管理研究所。
9. 林湘霖、王貞淑，(2015)，結合模糊層級分析法與關聯法則建構數位學習系統活動流程評估準則，管理與系統，第22卷，第1期，125-147頁。
10. 財團法人資訊工業策進會，(2006)，臺灣數位內容產業白皮書，臺北市：經濟部工業局。
11. 郭英峰、田子弘，(2017)，LINE企業貼圖類型對於廣告效果之影響，資訊管理學報，第24卷，第4期，455-483頁。
12. 陳勁甫、蕭玉華，(2008)，國際會議地點選址評估模式之研究─模糊AHP法之應用，環境與管理研究，第9卷，第1期，1-20頁。
13. 陳郁秀，(2005)，創意島嶼狂想曲-2050願景台灣，臺北市：遠流出版社。
14. 程勝美，(2018)，插畫應用於APP貼圖之行銷模式研究，中華印刷科技年報， 334-367頁。
15. 經濟部工業局，(2016)，109Taiwan數位內容產業年鑑，臺北市：經濟部工業局。
16. 經濟部工業局，(2019)，108Taiwan數位內容產業年鑑，臺北市：經濟部工業局。
17. 經濟部工業局，(2020)，109Taiwan數位內容產業年鑑，臺北市：經濟部工業局。
18. 廖千禎，(2008)，數位內容素材授權於衍生性商品設計之研究-以動畫為例，未出版碩士論文，銘傳大學設計管理研究所碩士在職專班。
19. 廖淑婷，(2016)，[貼近你心]—貼圖行銷對品牌與購買意願之影響，未出版碩士論文，國立中山大學行銷傳播管理研究所。
20. 劉俞佑，(2019)，從區塊鏈運用論數位音樂經營模式之變革，未出版碩士論文，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所。
21. 鄧振源、曾國雄，(1989)，層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上)，國統計學報，第27卷，第6期，5-22頁。
22. 賴文智，(2012)，著作權一點通，臺北市：經濟部智慧財產局。
23. 謝銘洋，(2017)，數位內容之著作權基本問題及侵權，台北市：中華民國政府出版品。
24. Aguiar, L., & Martens, B., (2016). Digital music consumption on the internet: evidence from clickstream data, Information Economics and Policy, 34, 27-43.
25. Angelis, J., & da Silva, E. R., (2019). Blockchain adoption: A value driver perspective, Business Horizons, 62(3), 307-314.
26. Bai, C., & Sarkis, J., (2013). A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical success factors, International Journal of Production Economics, 146(1), 281-292.
27. Bashir, I., (2018). Mastering blockchain: Distributed ledger technology, decentralization, and smart contracts explained, 2nd ed., Birmingham: Packt Publishing Ltd.
28. Buckley, J. J., (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233-247.
29. Buede, D. M., & Maxwell, D. T., (1995). Rank disagreement: A comparison of multi-criteria methodologies, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 4(1), 1-21.
30. Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G., (2012). A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3000-3011.
31. Cai, Z., (2020). Usage of deep learning and blockchain in compilation and copyright protection of digital music, IEEE Access, 8, 164144-164154.
32. Chan, F. T. S., & Kumar, N., (2007). Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach, Omega, 35(4), 417-431.
33. Chang, D. Y., (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649-655.
34. Chang, Y., Iakovou, E., & Shi, W., (2019). Blockchain in global supply chains and cross border trade: A critical synthesis of the state-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities, International Journal of Production Research, 1-18.
35. Chen, Y. C., Lien, H. P., & Tzeng, G H., (2010). Measures and evaluation for environment watershed plans using a novel hybrid MCDM model, Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2), 926-938.
36. Cheng, S., Chan, C. W., & Huang, G. H., (2002). Using multiple criteria decision analysis for supporting decisions of solid waste management, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 37(6), 975-990.
37. Chiu, W. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & Li, H. L., (2013). A new hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR to improve e-store business, Knowledge-Based Systems, 37, 48-61.
38. Chou, Y. C., Sun, C. C., & Yen, H. Y., (2012). Evaluating the criteria for human resource for science and technology (HRST) based on an integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL approach, Applied Soft Computing, 12(1), 64-71.
39. Crosby, M., Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., & Kalyanaraman, V., (2016). Blockchain technology: Beyond Bitcoin, Applied Innovation, 2, 6-10.
40. De Filippi, P., (2016). The interplay between decentralization and privacy: The case of blockchain technologies, Journal of Peer Production, 7, 1-18.
41. Di Ciccio, C., Cecconi, A., Mendling, J., Felix, D., Haas, D., Lilek, D., Riek, F., Rumpl, A., & Uhlig, P., (July, 2018). Blockchain-based traceability of inter-organisational business processes, In proceedings of International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design (MNSD 2018), Vienna, Austria.
42. Ehrgott, M., Klamroth, K., & Schwehm, C., (2004). An MCDM approach to portfolio optimization, European Journal of Operational Research, 155(3), 752-770.
43. Fernández-Caramés, T. M., & Fraga-Lamas, P., (2019). A review on the application of blockchain to the next generation of cybersecure industry 4.0 smart factories, IEEE Access, 7, 45201-45218.
44. Fleischer, R., (2017). If the song has no price, is it still a commodity?: Rethinking the commodification of digital music, Culture Unbound, 9(2), 146-162.
45. Fontela, E., & Gabus, A., (1976). Current perceptions of the world problematique. world modeling: A dialogue, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Oxford.
46. Ge, J., & Gretzel, U., (2018). Emoji rhetoric: A social media influencer perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(15-16), 1272-1295.
47. González-Rojas, O., Correal, D., & Camargo, M., (2016). ICT capabilities for supporting collaborative work on business processes within the digital content industry, Computers in Industry, 80, 16-29.
48. Goodman, R., (1988). Introduction to stochastic models, 1st ed., New York: Dover Publications.
49. Guo, L., & Meng, X., (2015). Digital content provision and optimal copyright protection, Management Science, 61(5), 1183-1196.
50. Hasan, H. R., & Salah, K., (2018). Proof of delivery of digital assets using blockchain and smart contracts, IEEE Access, 6, 65439-65448.
51. Hofmann, F., Wurster, S., Ron, E., & Böhmecke-Schwafert, M., (November, 2017). The immutability concept of blockchains and benefits of early standardization, In proceedings of 2017 ITU Kaleidoscope: Challenges for a Data-Driven Society, Nanjing, China.
52. Holliman, G., & Rowley, J. (2014). Business to business digital content marketing: marketers’ perceptions of best practice, Journal of research in interactive marketing, 8(4), 269-293.
53. Hsu, C. H., Wang, F. K., & Tzeng, G. H., (2012). The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 66, 95-111.
54. Hung, Y. H., Chou, S. C., & Tzeng, G. H., (2011). Knowledge management adoption and assessment for SMEs by a novel MCDM approach, Decision Support Systems, 51(2), 270-291.
55. Hwang, C. L., Lai, Y. J., & Liu, T. Y., (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making, Computers & Operations Research, 20(8), 889-899.
56. Jeppsson, A., & Olsson, O., (2017). Blockchains as a solution for traceability and transparency, Lund, Sweden: Lund University.
57. Jirgensons, M., & Kapenieks, J., (2018). Blockchain and the future of digital learning credential assessment and management, Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(1), 145-156.
58. Kamath, R., (2018). Food traceability on blockchain: Walmart’s pork and mango pilots with IBM, The Journal of the British Blockchain Association, 1(1), 3712.
59. Kang, D., & Park, Y., (2014). Review-based measurement of customer satisfaction in mobile service: Sentiment analysis and VIKOR approach, Expert Systems with Applications, 41(4), 1041-1050.
60. Khaw, L. T., (1994). Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), Faculty of Law, University of Malaya.
61. Konrad, A., Herring, S. C., & Choi, D., (2020). Sticker and emoji use in Facebook messenger: Implications for graphicon change, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(3), 217-235.
62. Lee, C. W., & Guo, J. M., (2017). Exploring the advertising effect of enterprise-sponsored LINE stickers, Journal of Advanced Engineering, 12(2), 105-111.
63. Lee, H. I., Chen, W. C., & Chang, C. J., (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan, Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 96–107.
64. Lee, Y. C., (2017). Effects of branded e-stickers on purchase intentions: The perspective of social capital theory, Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 397-411.
65. Li, X., Jiang, P., Chen, T., Luo, X., & Wen, Q., (2020). A survey on the security of blockchain systems, Future Generation Computer Systems, 107, 841-853.
66. Liao, S. H., & Hsu, S. Y., (2019). Big data analytics for investigating Taiwan LINE sticker social media marketing, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 32(2), 589-606.
67. Lim, S. S., (2015). On stickers and communicative fluidity in social media, Social Media+ Society, 1(1), 1-3.
68. Lin, C., He, D., Huang, X., Choo, K. K. R., & Vasilakos, A. V., (2018). BSeIn: A blockchain-based secure mutual authentication with fine-grained access control system for industry 4.0, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 116, 42-52.
69. Liu, S. F., Liu, H. H., Chang, J. H., & Chou, H. N., (2019). Analysis of a new visual marketing craze: The effect of LINE sticker features and user characteristics on download willingness and product purchase intention, Asia Pacific Management Review, 24(3), 263-277.
70. Lu, Q., & Xu, X., (2017). Adaptable blockchain-based systems: A case study for product traceability, IEEE Software, 34(6), 21-27.
71. Ma, Z., Jiang, M., Gao, H., & Wang, Z., (2018). Blockchain for digital rights management, Future Generation Computer Systems, 89, 746-764.
72. MacCrimmon, K. R., (1973). An overview of multiple objective decision making, University of South Carolina Press, Colombia.
73. Makczewski, J., (1999). GIS and multicriteria decision analysis, New Jersey: Wiley.
74. Meade, L. M., & Presley, A., (2002). R&D project selection using the analytic network process, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(1), 59-66.
75. Nakamoto, S., (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system, Available: http://bitcoin. org/bitcoin.pdf.
76. Nikou, S., & Mezei, J., (2013). Evaluation of mobile services and substantial adoption factors with analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Telecommunications Policy, 37(10), 915-929.
77. Nizamuddin, N., Hasan, H., Salah, K., & Iqbal, R., (2019). Blockchain-based framework for protecting author royalty of digital assets, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 44(4), 3849-3866.
78. Novak, P. K., Smailović, J., Sluban, B., & Mozetič, I. (2015). Sentiment of emojis, PloS one, 10(12), 1-21.
79. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H., (2004), Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445-455.
80. Pasala, S., Pavani, V., Lakshmi, G. V., & Narayana, V. L., (2020). Identification of attackers using blockchain transactions using cryptography methods, Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(6), 368-375.
81. Puthal, D., Malik, N., Mohanty, S. P., Kougianos, E., & Yang, C., (2018). The Blockchain as a decentralized security framework [future directions], IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 7(2), 18-21.
82. Rahimi, S., Gandy, L., & Mogharreban, N., (2007). A web-based high-performance multicriteria decision support system for medical diagnosis, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(10), 1083-1099.
83. Rastogi, V., & Kushwaha, P., (2019). Success and failure of digital money and virtual money: Case of cryptocurrency-bitcoin, IME Journal, 13(1), 74-81.
84. Raval, S., (2016). Decentralized applications: Harnessing bitcoin`s blockchain technology, 1st., California: O`Reilly Media Inc.
85. Ruangkanjanases, A., & Wutthisith, M., (2017). Factors influencing intention to purchase stickers in a messaging application: A comparative study between male and female customers in thailand, Advanced Science Letters, 23(1), 634-639.
86. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G., (1982). The logic of priorities: Applications in business, energy, health, and transportation, 2nd., Netherlands: Springer.
87. Saaty, T. L., (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281.
88. Saaty, T. L., (1980). The Analytic hierarchy process, New York: McGraw-Hill.
89. Saaty, T. L., (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26.
90. Saaty, T. L., (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process, 1st., Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
91. Saaty, T. L., (2001). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process, 2nd., Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
92. Saaty, T. L., (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
93. Salah, K., Rehman, M. H. U., Nizamuddin, N., & Al-Fuqaha, A., (2019). Blockchain for AI: Review and open research challenges, IEEE Access, 7, 10127-10149.
94. Sampietro, A., (2019). Emoji and rapport management in Spanish WhatsApp chats, Journal of Pragmatics, 143, 109-120.
95. Stuermer, M., Abu-Tayeh, G., & Myrach, T., (2017). Digital sustainability: Basic conditions for sustainable digital artifacts and their ecosystems, Sustainability science, 12(2), 247-262.
96. Shee, D. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & Tang, T. I., (2003). AHP, fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral approaches for the appraisal of information service providers in Taiwan, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 6(1), 8-30.
97. Shyur, H. J., & Shih, H. S., (2006). A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 44(7), 749-761.
98. Sikorski, J. J., Haughton, J., & Kraft, M., (2017). Blockchain technology in the chemical industry: Machine-to-machine electricity market, Applied Energy, 195, 234-246.
99. Subramanya, S. R., & Yi, B. K., (2006). Digital rights management, IEEE Potentials, 25(2), 31-34.
100. Swan, M., (2015). Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy, 1st., Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
101. Szabo, N., 1994, Smart contracts, Working paper, Available: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart.contracts.html.
102. Tang, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2019). Emoticon, emoji, and sticker use in computer-mediated communication: A review of theories and research findings, International Journal of Communication, 13, 27.
103. Tapscott, A., & Tapscott, D., (2017). How blockchain is changing finance, Harvard Business Review, 1(9), 2-5.
104. Tsai, H. H., Lee, H. Y., & Yu, H. C., (2008). Developing the digital content industry in Taiwan, Review of policy Research, 25(2), 169-188.
105. Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J., (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications, 1st., William Hall: Chapman & Hall.
106. Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W., (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL, Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028-1044.
107. Van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrcyz, W., (1983). A Fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3), 229-241.
108. Vernik, D. A., Purohit, D., & Desai, P. S., (2011). Music downloads and the flip side of digital rights management, Marketing Science, 30(6), 1011-1027.
109. Viriyasitavat, W., Da Xu, L., Bi, Z., & Sapsomboon, A., (2018). Blockchain-based business process management (BPM) framework for service composition in industry 4.0, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1-12.
110. Wang, C. S., & Lin, S. L., (2019). How instructors evaluate an e-learning system? An evaluation model combining fuzzy AHP with association rule mining, Journal of Internet Technology, 20(6), 1947-1959.
111. Wang, C. S., Yang, H. L., & Lin, S. L., (2015). To make good decision: A group DSS for multiple criteria alternative rank and selection, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, 1-15.
112. Wang, S. S., (2016). More than words? The effect of LINE character sticker use on intimacy in the mobile communication environment, Social Science Computer Review, 34(4), 456-478.
113. Wang, Y. L., & Tzeng, G. H., (2012). Brand marketing for creating brand value based on a MCDM model combining DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR methods, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 5600-5615.
114. Wu, W., (2008). Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach, Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 828-835.
115. Yang, H. L., & Lin, S. L. (2019). Applying fuzzy AHP to analyse the critical factors of adopting SoLoMo services, International Journal of Mobile Communications, 17(4), 483-511.
116. Yang, H. L., & Lin, S. L., (2017). The evaluation factors of adopting SoLoMo services: The hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach, Service Business, 11(3), 601-629.
117. Yang, J. L., & Tzeng, G. H., (2011). An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1417-1424.
118. Yeh, C. C., (2017). Using a hybrid model to evaluate development strategies for digital content, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 23(6), 795-809.
119. Yoon, K., (1987). A reconciliation among discrete compromise solutions, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38(3), 277-286.
120. Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H. N., Chen, X., & Wang, H., (2018). Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey, International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 14(4), 352-375.
121. Zimmermann, H. J., (2011). Fuzzy Set Theory—and its Applications, 4th., Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
122. Lee, J. Y., Hong, N., Kim, S., Oh, J., & Lee, J., (September, 2016). Smiley face: Why we use emoticon stickers in mobile messaging, In proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct New York, NY, USA.
123. Hunjak, T., & Jakovčević, D., (August, 2001). AHP based model for bank performance evaluation and rating, In proceedings of 6th International Symposium on Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP 2001), Berne, Switzerland.
124. Alkabani, Y., Koushanfar, F., & Potkonjak, M., (November, 2007). Remote activation of ICs for piracy prevention and digital right management, In proceedings of 2007 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD07), San Jose California, U.S.A.
125. Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., & Wang, H., (June, 2017). An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends, In proceeding of IEEE International Congress on Big Data (IEEE BigData 2017), Boston, MA, USA.
126. Bhowmik, D., & Feng, T., (August, 2017). The multimedia blockchain: A distributed and tamper-proof media transaction framework. In proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Digital Signal Processing (DSP 2017), London, UK.
127. Manohar, A., & Briggs, J., (April, 2018). Identity management in the age of blockchain 3.0, In proceedings of 2018 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2018), Montreal, Canada.
128. Landerreche, E., & Stevens, M., (May, 2018). On immutability of blockchains, In proceedings of 1st ERCIM-Blockchain 2018, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
129. Zhao, S., & O`Mahony, D., (December, 2018). BMCProtector: A blockchain and smart contract based application for music copyright protection, In proceedings of the International Conference on Blockchain Technology and Application (ICBTA 2018), New York, NY, USA.
130. Chen, L. M., Guan, S. P., & Du, R. R., (June, 2019). Study on copyright protection path of music from the perspective of blockchain technology, In proceedings of 6th International Conference on Management Science and Management Innovation (MSMI 2019), Changsha, China.
131. Rizal Batubara, F., Ubacht, J., & Janssen, M., (June, 2019). Unraveling transparency and accountability in blockchain, In proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2019), Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
132. Kim, S. G., (2018). A study on the blockchain 2.0 ethereum platform analysis for dApp development, The Journal of Korea Institute of Information, Electronics, and Communication Technology, 11(6), 718-723.
133. Ulieru, M., (2016). Blockchain 2.0 and beyond: Adhocracies. In Banking Beyond Banks and Money (pp. 297-303). Springer, Cham.
134. Yang, W., Garg, S., Raza, A., Herbert, D., & Kang, B., (August, 2018). Blockchain: Trends and future, In proceedings of Pacific Rim Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (PKAW 2018), Nanjing, China.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202100093en_US