The words “Facebook” and “Twitter” have been banned from being used on French television, Social Times reports.   The use of the social networking sites’ names on TV leads the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA) to believe that smaller social networking sites and start ups have very little chance of competing with the networking giants.   The CSA, which is very similar to the FCC, asks that advertisers be more generic when directing consumers to their sites.

“Find us on social networking websites” is more appropriate than the “Follow us on Twitter” or “Find us on Facebook” taglines, according to CSA spokeswoman Christine Kelly.   She adds, “If we allow Facebook and Twitter to be cited on air, it’s opening a Pandora’s box…other social networks will complain to us saying, ‘Why not us?’”

France apparently has a soft spot for Friendster, Bebo, and Myspace, which remain unaffected by the ban.   This makes me wonder about the last time the words “Check out my Bebo!” were uttered by anyone at all.

While the CSA certainly is correct in pointing out that Facebook and Twitter are at the top of the social networking pyramid, they fail to recognize that many companies use these platforms as a primary means of interaction with customers.

In today’s conventional advertising model, a TV ad refers to the company’s social network, which in turn refers back to the company’s website for purchases to be made.   Businesses are intentionally choosing the top two networks because they have the largest target audience. I personally think that the top social networks increase the bonds with customers much more than TV ads will.   Consumers in France, upon hearing “Find us on social networks” on TV will still probably check Twitter and Facebook first, as they are so widely established and universally accepted.

The CSA insists that the ruling was not an attempt to regulate the adoption of English words via France’s Toubon laws, either.

Some related data from Nielsen shows that consumers around the world spent 82% more time on social networks in December 2009 than in the previous year.   The average time per person in the same study for the month of December 2009 was four hours for France:

So is this decree really about fair competition, or is it a modern example of unnecessary micro-regulation?   It will be interesting to see if any petitions from Facebook, Twitter, and/or the people of France will help remove the ban in the near future. While I am not a citizen of France, I find the CSA’s decision to increase regulation on TV advertising to be redundant.   More and more individuals choose to remain on the computer rather than watch television as it is, so why is it necessary to create more red tape for the creators of ads for this form of declining media? I’d like to see what Twitter-reliant (read: obsessed) CNN would try to do in that country.

The inclusion of Facebook, Twitter, and other social network names in commercials is not intended to be advertising for these sites.   At its extreme, saying “Find us on Facebook” is a challenge directed at potential customers to try and remember the name of the brand the next time you are on a computer. Time will tell whether or not such a ban may upset more people than it benefits.   Laissez-faire will have to wait, for now.

Sure the economy is down and big budget Super Bowl ads are passe. But creative advertising doesn’t need a big budget. You just need a solid concept. This year all but three Super Bowl ads disappointed. Here are my top three favorites from this year, which isn’t saying much.

Good: The Simpsons Coca-Cola Spot
Yes, it was fun seeing the Simpsons do a spot for Coca Cola. But it was schmaltzy and void of any of the acerbic Simpson wit we’ve come to expect. Couldn’t Coca-Cola have allowed the writers to poke a little fun at those big love-fest Coke ads that taught the world to sing?

Better: The Betty White Snickers Spot
Betty White proves she’s as awesome as she ever was. But did you remember this spot was for Snickers? It, like many other Super Bowl ads this year, seemed to rely entirely on a gimmick that overshadows the product. Nevertheless, I do love Betty White.

Best: The David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey and Jay Leno ‘Late Show’ Spot
Clearly, the hands down winner for concept, casting and memorableness. The spot reprises the brilliant 2007 Super Bowl Late Night spot in which Oprah (pulling for the Chicago Bears) and Letterman (pulling for the Indianapolis Colts) are sitting on a couch together, in love, despite their longtime public animosity.

This ad was the brainchild of David Letterman, according to staff members of the “Late Show with David Letterman.” The spot done in a hurry last week. Winfrey and Leno — reportedly wearing a hooded sweatshirt, glasses and a glued on mustache — flew into New York to meet up at the Ed Sullivan Theater where the Late Show is taped. I can only guess the reason Leno and NBC agreed to participate was because they were taking a cue from Letterman himself who recently used his trademark brand of self-deprecating humor to successfully diffuse the fallout from the Employee Benefits Plan he was operating in the suite above the set of the Late Night show. While Leno definitely could use some diffusing of the Conan debacle this just ended up making him look sad — and Letterman a genius.

This Sunday the NFL shares the spotlight almost equally with advertisers who spend as much as $3 million for 30 seconds of airtime. That’s up 11% from last year. And production costs almost have no limit. You’ll see 2.5 minutes of 3-D commercials. You’ll see big stars like Conan O’Brien and Yo-Yo Ma and Pittsburgh Steelers player Troy Polamalu. You’ll even see commercials for commercials — special ads telling viewers to stay tuned for the 3-D spots just before halftime.

The fact is that Super Bowl commercials are luxury items, especially during this economy. FedEx and GM decided to skip this year. And Miller Brewing Company, rather creatively, somehow negotiated a 1 second ad with NBC. But there appears to be an emerging trend to create Super Bowl ads that are never intended to air. I think the trend started with Go Daddy’s 2005 steamy car wash ad — which actually was intended to air but was denied (even though it was really tame). Some smart marketers are capitalizing on the Super Bowl’s self-imposed puritanical code. They’ve figured out that they can create a “controversial” ad and run it on their website — and get free press.

In this PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) spot sexy girls get-it-on with veggies. Before we go too far, let’s be honest. PETA often gets in the way of their own messages quite a bit with a lot of boneheaded stunts. (And personally, I do enjoy a fresh salad — before my steak tartare with a fresh egg yolk on top.) However, this marketing move was smart. It speaks directly to the audience they want to reach: young high school and college students. And here’s the most intriguing part: it was done for a fraction of the cost of creating a real Super Bowl ad. Don’t think for a second that they ever expected it to be approved — I doubt PETA even has $3 million to spend on a spot.

Creating buzz around something doesn’t have to involve anything controversial — though that is the easier route. It just needs to be creative and topical enough for the press (and the public) to want to generate publicity about it. PETA could have released this ad at any time of the year, but by using the Super Bowl as a backdrop — and getting denied airtime by NBC with a perfect letter — they’ve given it more momentum. And that’s the key.

We’ve all sat in the creative meetings where we make something out of what seems like nothing. Those are great days that keep us coming back to the office with high hopes. Then there are the days when a simple task gets turned into a massive mess simply because nobody is allowed to focus on the goal. Instead, there are multiple goals, sometimes for multiple audiences.

Advertising shouldn’t be so hard — yet so often it is. Most consumers believe they know how to create ads simply because they are bombarded with messages daily and have no problem identifying what they like and don’t like. But being creative is only half the battle. The bulk of the work comes on the front end when everything gets defined around one clear objective in order to allow the creatives to form a message that cuts through the clutter and spells out the benefits — quickly and easily.

While we on the agency side certainly get in our own way when creating ads, clients (or, better said, the clients’ bosses) can also contribute to the problem by trying to have agencies add too much to the creative in order to cover as much ground as possible.

The end result, as you’ll see in the video below, is totally ineffective.