Les régulateurs français sont désagréables

In a move some here will applaud, others including me will find petty and plain stupid ....

Twitter and Facebook reminders banned from French airwaves

Media regulator prohibits phrases such as 'Follow us on Twitter' in move against leading social networks

How do you say Facebook and Twitter in French? You don't – at least, not if you are on radio or television, where French officials have banned any mention of them unless they are specifically part of the story.

The internet sites have fallen foul of a 1992 decree that outlaws the advertising or promotion of private business on programmes. Journalists will no longer be able to end their reports by saying "Follow us on Twitter" or "Have a look at our Facebook page", because the French government deems this as either blatant or subliminal promotion, and has decided it is unfair to other similar networks.

more ……..

WWW.GUARDIAN.CO.UK/MEDIA
06-Jun-2011 @ 17:02

Good on the French. It all comes down to common sense really - a brief mention here and there is fine, but when the whole show becomes based around Facebook and Twitter submissions when it's not supposed to be something has to be done.

#And the farmer hauled another load away...#

Its no different to inviting contributions and feedback via a phone number or text message, and that's happened here and in France for as long as those services have existed.

How many programmes are "based on" social networking contributions? With the exception of that Lily Allen garbage on BBC 3 I can't think of a SINGLE one. So was that just something you've decided, Brekkie, or can you give some examples?

No? Thought not.

If a better service comes along and gains more members than Facebook, then I'd expect all broadcasters to have a presence there too.

Its currently the easiest solution to share feedback and discuss with other viewers at ZERO cost to the audience. What exactly is the problem?

The problem is people being expected to sign up to the latest fad and interact with a show through a third party when in most cases shows could offer similar services through their own websites before they took the lazy route.

As I said it's all common sense but things like the BBC plugging Twitter and Facebook in between every performance of Eurovision and Philip Schofield not being able to get through a link on This Morning without checking his twitter account are ridiculous.

It is. How many times have you heard someone on TV say 'give us a text on your Orange phone'? The point is that there's a brand name. E-mail, phone and text are generic.


But the French regulator isn't stopping this, they can point people towards 'social networking sites' but not use specific names.

If the law is that there can be no commercial references on French news programmes then this latest ruling/clarification is absolutely correct. I don't think it's that much of a problem here because news programmes don't tend to point their viewers towards their social network presence but I'd have thought both the BBC and the commercial TV news programmes have to be careful with mentioning them.

I think the assumption is people are already using these services. The thing is broadcasters can offer their own way to interact with programmes and presenters, but they're going to lose out on loads of free advertising on Twitter and Facebook from hundreds of thousands and people.

It would simply be moronic for broadcasters or most other forms of business, to ignore Twitter and Facebook.

Most TV shows I see don't reference Twitter or Facebook by name anyway you should see promts on screen such @officialbanker or #fourrooms you tend to get more reference by name understandably on radio.

But as long as no one is in the pay of Twitter or Facebook I really don't see a problem.

Sky News use Twitter a lot in nearly every program, and both Twitter and Facebook have been incredibly influential on the spread of the Arab Spring. Surely social networking is just another tool for broadcasters to use to get the thoughts and opinions of their viewers, like texts and emails?

I presume this move is linked to Sarkozy trying to regulate the internet recently?

I honestly don't believe that Twitter would be as popular as it is today were it not for endless endorsements by the likes of Stephen Fry and the BBC.

Facebook is being valued at $50 billion ahead of its inevitable public floatation on the New York stock exchange in the next couple of years. Twitter is probably not worth as much as Faceook because it doesn't gather as much lucrative information about its users, but the company must be worth many billions of dollars, and in this country at least, that is thanks in no small part to the BBC, which hasn't received a penny in return for the dozens of TV and radio plugs it broadcasts every day.

I can see how promoting your company on Twitter is mutally beneficial for commercial media outlets, but the BBC doesn't gain anything from it except a few pithy viewer comments with which to pad out its shows. Is that really worth the millions and millions of pounds of value that the BBC has added and continues to add to Twitter?

Facebook's value is based on the number of eyeballs looking at it daily. One of the BBC's flagship entertainment shows, "Strictly Come Dancing" has 209,000 likes. Facebook has, minimally, half a billion users. I would say the value you think is being added by the Beeb is overstated wildly.

They may be legitimising it by virtue of using it as a platform; but converting that into dollars and cents is pointless speculation.

The BBC's gain is the lack of cost at having a global, resilient presence. They could instead, at probably significant cost, drive forward social networking on their own site, with their own development teams and staff. As it stands, a member of the production team creates a page on facebook and the job is done.

People who use the service will look for favourite things there, people who don't wont.

Isn't that kind of the point though - if Twitter/Facebook want plugs on TV, shouldn't they pay for it? A counter argument too broadcasters should pay to make use of such services, so I guess it's swings and roundabouts.


That is kind of the problem though - news programmes especially have become overly reliant on soundbites from viewers rather than the news itself. And not only do the ITV regions ask for comments nowadays before actually getting on with the top story, but in a couple of years we've gone from the web presence being ITV Local to a page on Facebook.

Twitter is a fad that would have waned ages ago if the media didn't go on about it all day.



Why would a public service broadcaster want to create a social networking site? What's the point?

M'kay then.



Because that's how people use the interwebs, silly, and the BBC are very good at delivering what people want on the web.

But if you tell them it's a waste of time then I'm sure they'll want to discuss it further.