Did anyone else notice this?

Mark F1 · 8 Jul 2002, 15:48 (Ref:329497)

Obviously, because the British GP is a non-tobacco race, the cars have to run without their tobacco liveries. For example, at Jordan instead of Benson & Hedges on the rear wing they cleverly covered it up with "Be On Edge".

So how come at a number of points around the circuit there were big adverts with "Marlboro F1" on them. And it wasn't as if they were small adverts, they were clearly visable on TV. So how comes the cars are not allowed to run with tobacco sponsorship but there are still big adverts dotted around the circuit?

Surely if there is a ban on tobacco sponsorship in a certain country then that means absolutely no advertising of any nature at all?

**Peter Mallett** · 8 Jul 2002, 15:50 (Ref:329498)

It's TV advertising I believe. Were the hoardings visible on the TV coverage?

Mark F1 · 8 Jul 2002, 15:55 (Ref:329500)

Yeah, there was one when the cameras were looking up the Hanger Straight and one at the Abbey chicane. There may have been some more but I can't quite remember where abouts they were.

J.McClane · 8 Jul 2002, 15:57 (Ref:329502)

Yeah, i noticed that too, but i think it is cos billboard cig ads are still allowed. Notice there are still billboards avertisin' ciggies in and aroun this country of ours.
So i guess that is why it is allowed but ads on the cars aint, but what the difference between ads on cars and ads on billboars is i don't know?

paul-collins · 8 Jul 2002, 17:22 (Ref:329543)

I don't remember noticing the ads on the Canadian feed, but then again I certainly wasn't watching for them.

The signs are real, are they? The IRL 500 had some virtual signs this year... But that was just ABC trying to Hoover some money without Tony George getting a cut. Virtual billboards show up in American football and baseball games, too.

BootsOntheSide · 8 Jul 2002, 17:51 (Ref:329566)

It's TV advertising via the back door really, and considering that teams go bankrupt because of problems with tobacco sponsorship, and generally teams with no fag money struggle in racing, and of course the Penske situation over the last year has been caused by well-intentioned but flawed US regulation, it shouldn't be allowed. Adverts for poisonous pollutants are the same whether they go at 190mph, or sit 'innocently' on a billboard.

zealot · 8 Jul 2002, 18:29 (Ref:329600)

I think Paul-Collins hit it on the head. The "billboards" weren't real, they were superimposed by the TV guys and beamed into our living rooms.

sceptic · 8 Jul 2002, 18:53 (Ref:329626)

The billboards were real. MarlboroF1 is apparently a range of clothing which has nothing to do with tobacco and is therefore not covered by the tobacco advertising ban.

paul-collins · 8 Jul 2002, 19:15 (Ref:329639)

Quote:

Originally posted by sceptic
The billboards were real. MarlboroF1 is apparently a range of clothing which has nothing to do with tobacco and is therefore not covered by the tobacco advertising ban.

BootsOntheSide · 8 Jul 2002, 19:57 (Ref:329689)

"The billboards were real. MarlboroF1 is apparently a range of clothing which has nothing to do with tobacco and is therefore not covered by the tobacco advertising ban."

Well that's alright then.
We're all safe.

Sato san · 8 Jul 2002, 20:14 (Ref:329709)

Quote:

Originally posted by sceptic
The billboards were real. MarlboroF1 is apparently a range of clothing which has nothing to do with tobacco and is therefore not covered by the tobacco advertising ban.

yes ..i see them too....im surprised that even with them being a clothing range they can still get away with it .

Mr V · 8 Jul 2002, 20:21 (Ref:329724)

I print some of the posters for the Marlboro clothing range and am sure it's all part of the tobacco group, proberbly a clever way of getting round the advertising problem as everyone will automatically associate it with tobacco!

zealot · 8 Jul 2002, 21:18 (Ref:329778)

If that's the case, why not just put "MarlboroF1" on the cars and say they're sponsored by the clothing line?

Sodemo · 8 Jul 2002, 23:45 (Ref:329848)

When will people learn that tobacco sponsorship DOES NOT increase the ammount of smokers, it is an advertising ploy to try and 'steal' smokers and ally them to a team, thus a cigarette brand.

I have been watching F1 since I were 4 -5 years old (1984) and was not felt compelled to smoke Rothmans when I were a Damon Hill supporter. I actually like the tobacco sponsorship on cars, and its small minded politicians who believe they can solve the problem by banning the advertisment of the product.

Carla O · 10 Jul 2002, 06:46 (Ref:330755)

I like the think McLaren does with West. I love the Kimi David and Team signs... On Thursday i was telling someone from the team that i thought they should do a shirt with Boss for Ron!

**Peter Mallett** · 10 Jul 2002, 07:25 (Ref:330777)

Quote:

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
"The billboards were real. MarlboroF1 is apparently a range of clothing which has nothing to do with tobacco and is therefore not covered by the tobacco advertising ban."

Well that's alright then.
We're all safe.

Not if you smoke "Tee shirt ready rubbed" apparently.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Did anyone else at Pukekohe notice that..	tanalised	Australasian Touring Cars.	9	21 Apr 2005 09:07
anyone notice this??	steve nielsen	Formula One	10	6 Sep 2001 15:56