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.

Was it okay for Walter E. Smithe to pay for a farewell party for outgoing mayor Richard M. Daley in exchange for some video testimonials from attendees for advertising purposes? Of course. Was it wrong that journalists and politicians participated. Of course not. Did Walter E. Smithe partially miss a great opportunity? Absolutely.

This morning Chicago journalist Robert Feder was interviewed by Greg Jarrett on WGN Radio about the blog he posted this morning. He’s fuming about how Chicago journalists would participate in a love-in for the outgoing Mayor. I understand where Feder is coming from. He’s a journalist and he’s upset about about ethics, though I see no need to fume. I’m more upset about the advertising.

First of all, kudos to Walter E. Smithe for having the idea to sponsor a party for Daley — and getting celebrities, politicians, journalists and others to give their well-wishes on camera including:

• Former President George W. Bush
• Chicago anchor legends Bill Kurtis and Walter Jacobson
• Longtime Chicago broadcaster Bob Sirott
• WBBM anchor Rob Johnson
• NBC5 anchor Allison Rosati
• Ed Bus, Chicago’s most famous fake alderman
• Reporter Natalie Martinez
• Eric Ferguson, morning radio host on WTMX
• Chicago comedian and actor George Wendt of Cheers fame
• Celebrity chef Paula Deen
• The cast of Chicago’s Second City

From a journalism perspective Bill Kurtis is the only one who truly leaps over the line at full speed by saying Daley is Chicago’s “best mayor” while sitting behind the anchor desk in CBS 2 Chicago’s studio. Kurtis, of all people, should have known better. Rob Johnson and Allison Rosati approach the line in an uncomfortable way, but don’t quite cross it. From an advertising perspective, all these indiscretions weaken the ad and should have been cut. This spot could have easily been saved.

If Walter E. Smithe hadn’t paid for the party, this morning we might have be hearing from John Kass instead — complaining about how Chicago taxpayers had to foot the bill. Advertising keeps broadcast television free. It helps keep the cost of your newspapers and magazines low. It also helps keep much of the content online free — including Feder’s own blog which is sprinkled with ads.

So who’s wrong here? (a) Feder is wrong that the journalists who participated in this were “bought” by a furniture retailer and free drinks. (b) A few of the journalists are wrong for overtly kissing Daley’s butt, even if he is walking out the door. And (c) Walter E. Smithe was wrong for failing to frame the concept of their own TV spot better. Monday Morning Quarterbacking advertising is easy, but with a little thought there are several specific things that could have been done with some light on-camera direction to make the spot stronger and feel less icky. It could have been framed as a tongue-in-cheek “This Is Your Life” parody. It could have been framed as a classy “we’ll miss you Mayor Daley” spot. If I gave this a few more minutes of thought I could come up with a half-dozen other ideas. Instead, they just strung a bunch of clips together with practically no memorable moments. It’s okay, but with all these recognizable faces it could have been more.

Daley’s been mayor of Chicago for 22 years. Regardless of your politics you’ve got to appreciate the significance of that. Saying a few nice things at a farewell party is completely appropriate. In the end, it was a great idea that ended up as a missed opportunity. It could have been funny, it could have been smart — and it could have gone viral — if only it had been done a little better.

We recently quoted on a video project and our client was surprised by how inexpensive it was. Why was it inexpensive? Partly because we’re smart about controlling costs. Secondly, it’s 2010.

Technology is progressing to the point where the barriers to entry are becoming increasingly low. Video equipment is continually decreasing in cost, video editing which used to need a bank of computers and a suite filled with editing equipment can now be done on a fast laptop. This morning Digital Inspiration posted this video from Nokia. It’s a short professional film – shot in only four days in high definition entirely on a Nokia N8. Yes, the Nokia N8 is a wireless phone. Take a look. It stars Dev Patel from Slumdog Millionaire and Pamela Anderson.

Now before you give up your career to shoot a sequel to Inception (or even Patch Adams for that matter) you should know that while this film was shot on the N8, over 50 people were involved in the creation including a professional director, lighting technicians, gaffers, art directors, electricians, stunt coordinators, sound engineers, special effects artists and a few bankers with some pretty wicked parkour skills.

You may know you’re old when after a morning of mountain biking, meeting for lunch with your financial adviser and then watching the sun set over a lake with your significant other while sitting (for some weird reason) in separate old claw-foot bathtubs that you dragged out on the lawn — you just want to relax in front of some good old-fashioned TV. That is if you believe the latest TV viewer median age data gives you the complete picture.

Steve Sternberg, a media analyst, just released some new data showing that TV’s audience — which should be no surprise to anyone — is getting older. ABC’s median viewership is now 51, one year older than last season. CBS is now 55, also a year older. NBC is up two years, to 49. Fox is still at the kid’s table at 44. Ten years ago  ABC was 43, CBS was 52, NBC was 45 and Fox was just 35. That means the same viewers haven’t changed their habits. They’re just putting more candles on their birthday cakes.

It’s not quite fair to point fingers at broadcast either. Cable is in the same boat (or is that a clawfoot bathtub?). In fact, Fox News is the oldest channel of all time at 65 — surprisingly older than the Hallmark Channel, Military Channel and the Golf Channel. CNN is 63, MSNBC 59 and CNBC (oddly enough) 52. What’s the youngest fully distributed channel? Oxygen. Then Bravo, VH1 Classic, Travel and TLC. Their median age is about 42.

So what’s happening here? Why are younger people not watching TV anymore? Are they all on the Internet? Do you know many people who don’t have cable, satellite or fiber optic TV in their homes? Of course not. I think the problem lies within how younger people consume media and the way we currently collect data.

Learning how to be less loyal

Not that long ago broadcast television was king. There were three major channels. And then Fox. I remember when Fox took over WFLD in Chicago. My father dismissed the station out of hand — thinking it wouldn’t be around long. After all, how could it compete with three big juggernauts. As far as I was concerned it was great — why wouldn’t I want another programming option. Especially one with cutting edge shows like The Tracy Ulman Show (the birthplace of The Simpsons) and In Living Color.

The introduction of Fox wasn’t merely an extra channel. It was the beginning of new way to consume media. We were being taught that we didn’t need to be loyal. That’s confusing to networks; television programming is designed around loyalty, airing certian shows after other popular shows to gain viewership. Television was quickly turning into dim sum. Younger viewers now consume media in tasty little bites by surfing around, bouncing from channel to channel, show to show. Older viewers are more inclined to tune into a station and leave it there. Want physical and anecdotal proof? Two words: Fox News.

In other words younger viewers are more splintered. Not only do we have 50 channels to surf, we have social networking sites, YouTube, blogs and streaming television options like Hulu (which has a cluelessly designed, extremely limited and underutilized advertising model) and Netflix (with absolutely no advertising model). The current ratings model isn’t only skewing older, it’s skewing older and because of a relatively unsophisticated interpretation and collection of data, dangerously ignoring younger viewers. There needs to be even more sophisticated methods of measuring data across multiple television channels and alternative media at the same time — and a way to compile all that data into one massive profile analysis.

Pulling back and looking at a more complete picture is vitally important. For example: yes — older people may be signing up for social media sites like Facebook — but they’re not using those tools to their full advantage or frequently enough (learn more at our free webinar, Tuesday, August 17th at 12pm CST, titled Reaching Boomers Via Social Media). TV is still the best way to reach consumers over 45, but the larger picture is that they’re not alone. Make no mistake. Younger viewers are still watching TV. They’re just consuming it differently.

I’ve always believed that advertising should be persuasive (if your message isn’t compelling there is no reason for anyone to buy, sign up, or connect in any way), simple (complex messages are difficult to understand and often bore or become invisible), emotional (BBH famously developed the theory of the Emotional Selling Proposition (ESP), a direct move away from the older Unique Selling Proposition (USP) standard. ESP has become the basis for some of the most powerful advertising in the past century) and it should tell a good story (by leading viewers, readers or listeners through a story you can engage them on a deeper level and help them understand your product or service on a more personally).

I’ve also always felt Public Service Announcements (PSAs) are the low-hanging fruit in the world of advertising. Their accessible purposes are easy to understand by nearly everyone. How can you not agree that a mind is a terrible thing to waste, or that you really should give a hoot, don’t pollute and support the American Red Cross Haiti Relief effort. Agencies develop a mascot, line up some celebrities and write some wicked copy. But often these campaigns still fall short of greatness.

So I’m giving kudos to the United Kingdom’s Sussex Safer Roads Partnership and their new Embrace Life campaign which encourages seatbelt use. In America, we currently have our own simpleminded and threatening Click it or Ticket campaign and maybe a clever billboard, but honestly none have ever been persuasive.

Well done, Sussex Safer Roads Partnership. Persuasive, simple, emotional and it tells a story.

I have no idea how they got Warren Buffet to do this, but they have been trying to play-up his involvement in Geico (Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway owns Geico) for some time through their print ad campaign (see below). Cast in the spot are real-life Geico employees who actually do a pretty decent job of singing. Nicely done.

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.

TV killed the radio star and the Internet killed…well maybe both. Audiences on TV are shrinking in favor of the Internet for a variety of reasons. What better way to deal with something uncomfortable than to poke some serious fun at it?

Last night something horrible happened. The Emmy Awards broadcast was interrupted by Dr. Horrible (actor and Emmy host Neil Patrick Harris). For the uninitiated, Dr. Horrible is an aspiring mad scientist, trying to be accepted into the League of Evil, who posts periodic updates of his Horribleness in his Sing Along Blog — and in my opinion is funniest thing to come out of the 2007-2008 writers strike.

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.

Deloitte has just completed a very large study of consumers between 13 and 75 years of age and have found out some fairly surprising statistics. They will officially release the results of their third annual “State of the Media Democracy” report the first week of January at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas.

The majority of the study’s impact revolves around how Millenials (14-25 year olds) are consuming media and responding to advertising. Most surprisingly, they’re not watching as much TV as older generations. In truth, they’re watching a lot of TV, just not on their TVs.

But why? Of course there are the obvious reasons, online viewing is more convenient for busier lives, DVRs, DVDs, TiVO, etc. are able to allow content to be viewed on demand. But I think there are better reasons this marketing shift is occurring. With the economy tightening budgets, perhaps younger people are not as inclined to pay $50+ per month for TV. I think one of the main reasons is TV programming itself. The best and most popular programming on TV today like Lost and 30 Rock are better when you watch episodes by Netflixing them in sequence on DVD or watching them online on Hulu.

Content viewership is important, but how this new generation is responding to advertising?

Today’s youth are spending less time watching TV but way more time with media overall if you factor-in video games, music and the Internet. Let’s break down this information a little:

• Millennial generation (14-25) watches an average of just 10.5 hours of TV a week
• Generation X (26-42) watches an average of just 15.1 hours of TV a week
• Baby Boomers (33-61) watch 19.2 hours
• Matures (62-75) watch the most at 21.5 hours per week
• Word of mouth is the most common reason for Millennials to visit a Web site, followed by an ad on television. Almost half (48 percent) visit television Web sites in a typical week.
• When they find a particular television show or Web site they enjoy, they tell an average of 18 people, compared with only 10 people for all age groups.

So what exactly are Millennials watching online? TV programming. YouTube counts for a lot of searches and demand but that doesn’t convert directly into influencing purchase patterns. ScreenDigest, the pre-eminent firm of industry analysts that has been covering global media markets for over 30 years has put together some projections on the future of advertising and television and put them together in a webinar titled “The Economics of Free.”

• Premium original content, not user-generated video is where the bulk of revenues comes from
• By 2011 ad-funded free-to-view TV shows will account for 10 times more consumption than paid content
• By 2012 premium TV content, such as Hulu, is projected to have 10 percent more consumers than amateur user-generated content.

On closer inspection, Deloitte’s study pulls the thread to unravel some current wisdom

High Demand for User-Generated Content

• 40 percent of all survey respondents are making their own entertainment (editing movies, music and photos)
  • 25 percent of Matures
  • 56 percent of all Millennials; leading Millennials (18–24) participate more
• More than one in 10 Millennials are actively uploading their own videos on the Internet
• 51 percent of all survey respondents are watching/reading content created by others
• 71 percent of Millennials watch/read content created by others; 56 percent of Xers do; Boomers/Matures participate less, but participation is noteworthy
• 53 percent of Millennials would download more videos if connection speeds were faster
• One-third of online content viewing is done on user-generated sites
  • Almost ¼ for Matures, ½ for Millennials

Long Live Traditional Media!

• Favorite and promising new television shows beat the Web as the most frequent media conversation topics for all generations
  • Extensive amplification with the Millennials as they tell the most people about what they like
  • 52 percent of Xers are visiting television show Internet sites
• Printed magazines are an integral part of every generation’s life
  • 72 percent enjoy reading magazines over finding the same information online
  • 58 percent of Millennials agree magazines help them learn about what’s “in”
• Compared with online activities like surfing the Web and downloading music, all generations aspire to reading a book in the coming year

Advertising Insights

• 64 percent tend to pay greater attention to print ads in magazines or newspapers than advertising on the Internet
• More than one-in-four would pay for online content vs. being exposed to ads
• Search engines and word of mouth are the most effective means for driving Web site traffic — 85 percent of Xers are influenced by someone’s recommendation
• 87 percent of respondents continually visit the same Web sites
• Generation Xers are a little more responsive to advertising

Future Products
Millennials are leading the way as far as embracing new technologies, games, entertainment platforms, user-generated content and communication tools:

• 64 percent want to easily connect their television to the Internet for viewing videos and downloading content to their television
• 60 percent want the ability to move their content to any device they own without any problems
• 57 percent want an entertainment and communication device that lets them do everything

TV still dominates, print remains highly influential

Deloitte’s study finds that TV remains, by far, the most influential advertising medium, followed by magazines, the Internet, newspapers, radio and billboards. 64 percent pay more attention to printed advertising than online. Social networking sites are considered separate, and they are the seventh-most influential place to advertise, followed by in-theater ads, DVDs, blogs (also, distinct from the Internet), video games, mobile phones and virtual worlds. For the complete details, we’ll have to wait for January 6, 2009 when Deloitte releases their final findings in a “Super Session” at CES.