Last week, I noted that Internet ad spending had dropped five percent in the first three months of the year, and wondered when Web ads might rebound.

And now, here’s a data point for optimists in the “soon, real soon” camp: Procter & Gamble (PG), the world’s biggest marketer, is pouring more into Web ads than ever. Last quarter, it increased its spending on Internet display ads by nearly 150 percent.

Those numbers, from ad tracking service TNS, via Ad Age, are similar to outlays from rival Johnson & Johnson (JNJ). Both companies are now spending about four percent of their ad bugets on online display–the boring banner ads on Yahoo (YHOO) and Time Warner online unit AOL (TWX) that everyone loves to complain about.

The numbers don’t include other Web categories like video and search. But as much as some of us (ok, me) like to chatter about video sites like YouTube and Hulu, Web video is still a tiny ad market. And  consumer packaged goods companies like P&G and J&J,  who bring you everything from toothpaste to diapers, have traditionally had less use for Google (GOOG) than other marketers.

These still aren’t huge numbers in the grand scheme of things: For P&G, that amounts to about $26.9 million in the first three months of the year; for J&J, $15.5 million.

But if this keeps up, it will be a big deal. Internet boosters have been waiting a very long time for the consumer packaged goods guys, who are responsible for a huge swath of offline advertising spending, to move onto the Web. Astonishing that it’s taken until 2009 to get them there, but you’re not going to hear many complaints right now.

Procter & Gamble (PG), which spends upwards of $6.7 billion a year on advertising, won’t be trimming that number, even though the company missed its earnings goal and cut its guidance last Friday. The people behind… well, pretty much every packaged consumer good in the world, aren’t going to stop pushing those brands like Tide, Gillette, Pampers, etc.

But they are getting more bang for their buck, CEO A.G. Lafley said during the company’s earnings call last week. And they are planning on spending some of those dollars in different ways. That may mean more digital–and more coupons and in-store displays. Transcript from Seeking Alpha:

We have held our marketing spending, advertising spending and in fact what is really going on is the advertising markets are softening and for the same dollar we are buying more delivery…we have been shifting support in general to the store and the point of purchase….It is couponing in markets where couponing is a well established consumer habit and coupon redemptions go up in recessionary times. In markets like the U.S. we have clearly shifted dollars to coupons….Then depending on the market we are doing more digital and there are a number of categories that are doing quite well with the digital.”

There’s your good news for the day, media folks. Now you have to figure out how to capitalize on it.

[Image Credit: Clean Wal-Mart]

Another day, another article about how social-networking advertising has a steep uphill ride to get to any kind of decent pinnacle of profitability.

This time, it’s the New York Times’s Digital Domain columnist Randall Stross weighing in yesterday on the experiments going on between Facebook and the world’s largest advertiser, Procter & Gamble (PG).

Unfortunately, Stross did not appear to actually talk much to either party about the specific results, except to make his own nonscientific determination of two seemingly lackluster advertising efforts around P&G’s Tide and Crest brands on Facebook.

Thus, to my mind, the article represents the high-water mark of the Facebook-Is-Dead theme. This is characterized by the theme of the hot social-networking site running out of money and doing down rounds from its once-touted $15 billion valuation (a valuation that was fiction then and only more so in this weak economic environment).

That plot was, of course, preceded by the Facebook-Is-Immortal story, in which the start-up could do no wrong.

BoomTown did not buy the latter, as readers of this column will recall. But I certainly don’t accept the former either.

Instead, hopefully, we can now reset all our expectations and keep it simple: Facebook has impressive growth and terrific products, which everyone should admire.

Now, it and other sites like it have to come up with innovative ways to monetize their services.

And that is not impossible, as the article in the Times–which would surely trade Facebook’s challenges for its own in the ad market, I would guess–insinuates.

How does it arrive at this conclusion?

By referencing a sizzling quote last month by Ted McConnell, manager of interactive marketing and innovation at P&G, of course, who said at a conference: “I really don’t want to buy any more banner ads in Facebook” and also, “I don’t want to be best friends with a brand…It’s just stuff.”

Along with this less-than-smoking gun, the article also lists all the alleged problems of advertising in a social-networking environment, most of which are very old news for anyone paying even the slightest attention over the last year.

To wit: People on social networks like to hang with friends rather than brands; ads on member homepages are cheap, but no one looks at them anyway; to get people to pay attention, you need to fork over too much or do dumb prize contests; consumers are not interested in being brand ambassadors; and, of course, advertisers don’t like putting their brands next to possibly nutty user-generated content.

While a P&G spokesperson later told the Times it was committed to its “strong” Facebook relationship, Stross ended with this zinger: “When Facebook convinces advertisers to stage Super Bowl-sized entertainment every day, its future will be assured.”

Thanks for the heads-up, except the premise could not be further from what it will likely take for the Facebooks of the world to succeed.

Rather than think on these kinds of mass terms, the ad industry is going to have to get used to a much different paradigm if it wants to reach young consumers. It is a Twittery, SMS-rich, Super-Poking world, in which the message will have to be drastically changed to work.

And it is incumbent on Facebook and the ad industry to come up with new kinds of ad formats–yet uninvented–and new means of engagement.

Now, Facebook–which never met a buzzword it did not trot out too early–is using this “engagement” term to try to excite advertisers, which it should not do before such a thing actually works.

Instead, it has to slowly and quietly make inroads on a variety of fronts, much as Google (GOOG) did way back when it was not profitable, and then tout the results.

Until Facebook does that, though, expect more of the same it-won’t-work mentality across the landscape.

That is, until it does work, of course.

And, no surprise, he is the No. 1 choice of most inside and outside Yahoo (YHOO) in the wake of the news late yesterday that current CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang is stepping down.

And why not? Chernin has the right resume: Experienced at running large and complex organizations; savvier than most in media about the Internet; able to make the kinds of dramatic decisions needed; and, perhaps best of all, signaling–via the Los Angeles Times–just this past week that he was open to leaving the powerful media and entertainment conglomerate for something new.

Well, Yahoo would certainly be new for Chernin, in terms of a corporate cleanup challenge, especially compared to figuring out how to make bank on plush toys from “The Simpsons.”

And, while the risks are many, if Chernin (pictured here) managed to turn around Yahoo, he could make a huge fortune too, given Yahoo shares have languished of late, much in the same way they did when former CEO Terry Semel came to Yahoo from Hollywood in 2001.

But it’s not altogether clear whether Chernin would actually leave his powerful perch at News Corp. (NWS) — which owns Dow Jones and owns this Web site. He has been ensconced there for a dozen years, building a huge reputation as a sharp exec (No, Peter, I am not kissing up, as I think Yahoo would wear even you down very, very quickly).

That’s even though many note he is not likely to take over as CEO from its iconic leader, Rupert Murdoch. The media mogul is widely expected to favor one of his own children to lead News Corp. next.

And the 57-year-old Chernin already makes close to $30 million in his current job, which is definitely challenging.

And, although Chernin has been involved in the News Corp.-owned MySpace and has had success backing the Hulu online video site, it is not nearly as hard as the five-year turnaround quagmire (plus no fabulous media mogul perks either) that Yahoo could turn out to be.

In addition, privately to other News Corp. execs, Chernin has regularly pooh-poohed a move to a digital company, even though he is always on the short list for a lot of big Internet jobs — such as the long-unfilled post as digital head at Microsoft (MSFT) more recently.

So, who else to take over from Yang, who will return to his job as Chief Yahoo after stepping down from the company as soon a search for a replacement CEO is successful?

Well, here is BoomTown’s own shortish list, based on asking a wide range of people inside and outside Yahoo, all of whom are important digital players in their own right.

INSIDE YAHOO

Sue Decker:

The current president of Yahoo is certainly being “considered” for the job, which is a polite term for not really being considered at all. While Decker is an intelligent and thoughtful exec, like a politician with a record, she has had her hand on the operating tiller at Yahoo for too long not to get deservedly blamed for its current situation.

In addition, she is radioactive to big investors, who have told the Yahoo board in no uncertain terms that she is a nonstarter.

Maggie Wilderotter:

The former Microsoft exec, who has also been a public company CEO, is an interesting idea floated by some, who think the Yahoo board might turn to one of its own directors, as a short-term solution to stabilize Yahoo.

Wilderotter has been much focused, said several Yahoo execs, on cost-cutting at Yahoo and certainly is not as tarnished, being a more current board member. But she is a largely unknown quantity in the Internet space and, most importantly, at Yahoo.

John Chapple:

The former CEO of Nextel is one of the two board members (former media Frank Biondi Jr. is the other) recently picked by Carl Icahn, when the activist shareholder was admitted on the board as part of the proxy fight settlement.

Chapple has, sources said, been conducting chats with Yahoo execs lately, perhaps as a way to get a lay of the land. If he got the job, it would be clear Icahn had won his Pyrrhic victory (and personal financial defeat) against Yang.

OUTSIDE YAHOO

Dan Rosensweig:

The very funny, but brash, former Yahoo COO is definitely a favorite within Yahoo’s ranks, except for those who don’t like him. But it’s clear Rosensweig does know and love Yahoo, is close to Yang and, ironically, enjoys a tight relationship with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, who also wanted him for the digital head job.

Also, Rosensweig, who does have operating chops, has gotten some much needed time away from Yahoo, as a partner at the tony media investment firm, the Quadrangle Group.

Meg Whitman:

Another dreamy CEO choice, except she has already been a big company CEO at eBay (EBAY), has proved her mettle in building it to a powerhouse–despite the online auction site’s currently harder times–and has the giant fortune to prove it.

And, oh yes, she is likely to be using that pile of cash to run for governor of California, on the Republican ticket.

Jon Miller/Ross Levinsohn:

The Bobbsey Twins of the Internet, the pair are now having a very good time running their own investment company, the Velocity Group.

But, aside from some questioning whether he can make the quick decisions needed at Yahoo, Miller (pictured here on the right), the former head of AOL, does not want to leave his New York home and cannot take any job anyway until his noncompete with Time Warner (TWX) runs out in March.

And former Fox Interactive Media head Levinsohn likes Los Angeles, and probably is too fast a personality for Yahoo (his going there would be a shock to its system, but would be endlessly entertaining to me personally).

Tim Armstrong:

The top ad exec at Google (GOOG) certainly is an interesting idea, although has little of the product experience needed to run Yahoo. But he is a well-respected advertising figure–where Yahoo needs to shine–and could do well with a lot of strong execs under him.

He is also not on a CEO path at Google–paging, Larry Page!–and could be interested in proving he could run a company on his own.

Kevin Johnson:

The former Microsoft exec was supposed to be running Yahoo, if he and Ballmer pulled off their takeover attempt earlier this year. They did not, and Johnson then left Microsoft to run Juniper Networks (JNPR) in Silicon Valley, right up the road from Yahoo, in fact.

But Johnson is likely subject to a noncompete by Microsoft and a strong contract at Juniper too. Still, a very sharp exec, he definitely has the operating, political, technological and digital skills to take on Yahoo. Also, ironically, he and Yang really get along well and like each other, despite the takeover battle.

Of course, there are a lot of other ideas: Disney (DIS) online exec Steve Wadsworth; the outside-the-box choice of former Procter & Gamble (PG) marketing wizard Jim Stengel; Microsoft digital exec Yusuf Mehdi; CBS (CBS) digital head Quincy Smith (whose hyperactive dealmaking would likely lead to a mutant merger between CBS and Yahoo); and former Cisco (CSCO) and current Joost CEO Mike Volpi.

Please post suggestions below or, better yet, send tips to me at here.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.