f1 tobacco advertising

[Dixie Flatline]

I've read reports in F1 Racing magazine (IIRC) that Phillip Morris (the company that owns the Marlboro brand) has purchased the right to whole-car signage rights, apart from Shell, for $100 million in 2006 rising to $215 million in 2011. At some other stage, I read that Phillip Morris will try to overcome the anti-tobacco advertising laws by using a form of almost-subliminal advertising to paint the Ferrari in a design evocative of the cigarette without actually being in contravention of the legislation.

Of course, this means that Ferrari have lost Vodafone to McLaren and are unable to entice other sponsors on board. Seems a bit silly.

[frederick]

Funny thing, when I look at a Ferrari I see a Ferrari,
I would need to be prompted to associate it with a Tobacco Brand
so it's not really effective "subliminal" advertising is it?

It wouldn't make me smoke even if it did have the words Marlboro plastered all over it
Who do they survey in order to come up with these theories?
is there a particularly gullible sub-species of human I have yet to encounter?

If there is then tobacco related illness might be a good way to cull the herd

[BootsOntheSide]

Tobacco advertising may or may not make people start smoking, but it definitely makes it harder for them to stop - the constant reminder. And avs has seemingly forgotten that the current Ferrari colour is not their traditional colour, it's Marlboro's. Look at any pre-1995 Ferrari (other than the aforementioned yellow ones) for proof.

[Dutton]

With 1997 being the most extreme example.

[Suze]

i think how your perceive the ferrari (or any other team) and tobacco sponsorship does also depend a lot on whether you're a smoker or not....personally i'm not but i know most of the brands and colours - i'm not in my local shop saying "ooh look, ferrari colours." but the liveries are a constant reminder when watching anything racing related....boots on the side makes a good point there.

[Dobbo89]

Originally Posted by avsfan733

I still object to the advertising being banned in the first place. I know its OT but can someone give me some explanation of this logic. I look at it as if you aren't aware of the risks of smoking then you must have you head so far down in the sand that you can't see these advertisements. People smoke by their own choice there are many methods to quit (and applause to williams for it). Seriously if you start smoking as a result of a really fast car or any other pretty picture then you are completely ignoring the overwhelming (and in this country obnoxious) arguements made against it.

All this also comes from a former smoker (5 years) who enjoyed smoking as calming but decided the health risks weren't worth it...a logical decision IMHO

I agree, I am totally against the banning of advertising certain products. my opinion is, if you can legally sell a product, then you should be able to advertise it. People dont smoke because they see a painted logo, however if they do smoke they will go to that brand, but people smoke because they have role models who smoke, be it the parents, movies stars, or just because they are teenagers who have peer pressure, or a rebellious nature.

All I see from this is that wonderful EU circuits like spa will be canned for a gp in favour of a car park in the middle of a desert in bumf*ck nowhere, visaunanattainia, a state run tobbaco advertising friendly third world. If it is true that money talks in F1, this will happen. mind you, exxonmobil did register a US$36 billion profit last week, perhaps the tobacco companies could be outbid? World F Mobil1 championship, anyone?

I do like the last statement however, smoker of 5 years, how did you know about the health risks, government advertising perhaps?????

[Dobbo89]

sorry to reply again, but if I was a tobbaco company, I would take out a poster type ad in every EU sports mag with a pic of the car in full livery from the latest tobacco friendly gp, and congratulate the team for their efforts, even if it is a couragous 16th place.

I would also stipulate in the contract that the team can only refer to the drivers with their new nick-names, Malboro Mick or lucky Jensen come to mind....

There are a hell of a lot smarter people than myself employed by these companies to find solutions like the above.

[Dixie Flatline]

Originally Posted by Dobbo89

sorry to reply again, but if I was a tobbaco company, I would take out a poster type ad in every EU sports mag with a pic of the car in full livery from the latest tobacco friendly gp, and congratulate the team for their efforts, even if it is a couragous 16th place.

I would also stipulate in the contract that the team can only refer to the drivers with their new nick-names, Malboro Mick or lucky Jensen come to mind....

There are a hell of a lot smarter people than myself employed by these companies to find solutions like the above.

Actually, at least in Australia and presumably under the EU legislation, your first proposal would not work. Under Australian anti-tobacco advertising legislation, the tobacco advertising on the cars would need to be blurred out. I have a poster advertising the 2005 Australian Grand Prix at home, and most of the cars on the poster do not feature tobacco brand names, except for McLaren. The "West" livery on the rear wing is blurred out.

[Adam43]

Dixie, you are right, a tobacco company taking out such an advertisement is tobacco advertising and illegal. Remember the last generation of cigerette ads? The had nothing to do with smoking anyway.

[Dobbo89]

Originally Posted by Dixie Flatline

Actually, at least in Australia and presumably under the EU legislation, your first proposal would not work. Under Australian anti-tobacco advertising legislation, the tobacco advertising on the cars would need to be blurred out. I have a poster advertising the 2005 Australian Grand Prix at home, and most of the cars on the poster do not feature tobacco brand names, except for McLaren. The "West" livery on the rear wing is blurred out.

You have got me, my father bought Auto Action at the airport issue no. 1174, and malboro sticker on scheuys helmet is not blurred on the front page, or page 8 (testing diary) or "hotshots" page 24, but I admit there is no other reference on the cars themselves, but we are out of season, someone from the media is far more qualified to answer this, but perhaps there is a difference. stonedpony where are you?

[Dobbo89]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Dixie, you are right, a tobacco company taking out such an advertisement is tobacco advertising and illegal. Remember the last generation of cigerette ads? The had nothing to do with smoking anyway.

but as you use a non-tobacco shelf company, or perhaps get the brake pad suppliers to do it, or some other sponser, you are not breaking the law!

[Rennen]

Gosh!...I thought cigarette companies spent their money on advertising and sports promotions for the sole purpose of tax avoidance! How cynical can an ole git get!

[ryan7727]

i don't think tobacco advertising in f1 is a problem, i think it encourages people to switch brands but surely it doesn't actually make people start smoking?? not unless the drivers themselves light up during the press conferences etc then its not a problem

[avsfan733]

Boots, going back a page I understand your point. But I guess I'm looking at it in the sense of red is red (not tryign to offend any true tifosi though). It would have worked the same way if they changed the marlboro red to match old ferrari red (or yellow) not vice versa. My point is really about the coming changes and the definition of advertising.

The US is goofy enough on this I see things like A NASCAR race in Winston Salem North Carolina can't use that in its name because its also a tobacco company...Everything thing I see makes me wonder wether the EU is going to be even worse.

[Dutton]

I am still somewhat surprised that some cigarette company hasn't started some nominal product line of coffee, or something, so that they can then advertise their coffee.

I suppose the regs must prohibit this in some fashion.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dutton

I am still somewhat surprised that some cigarette company hasn't started some nominal product line of coffee, or something, so that they can then advertise their coffee.

I suppose the regs must prohibit this in some fashion.

Too much coffee is bad for you.Helps with the hangovers though.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Too much coffee is bad for you.Helps with the hangovers though.

Oouucchhh... how much is too much ?????

[BootsOntheSide]

Marlboro have tried that, with the MarlboroF1 clothing range. The legislators were one stpe behind the companies on taht one, I wonder what else they have in mind.

[Dixie Flatline]

Haven't seen this article get a link on this thread, so I thought I'd put it in. Grandprix.com are noting that tobacco sponsorship of Formula One is reducing (except for Phillip Morris' support of Ferrari) as a result of international cooperation on the banning of tobacco advertising:

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns16210.html

[Dobbo89]

Originally Posted by Dixie Flatline

Haven't seen this article get a link on this thread, so I thought I'd put it in. Grandprix.com are noting that tobacco sponsorship of Formula One is reducing (except for Phillip Morris' support of Ferrari) as a result of international cooperation on the banning of tobacco advertising:

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns16210.html

dixie flatline, you should read an article before you post a link to it, that was pure propaganda, the only reason tobacco sponsership is worth more money is because they have no other medium bar sponsership to advertise.For example; KFC, (just as deadly as far as I am concerned) has to divide their promotional budget between TV, print, letter-drops and sponserships.

The thing that gets me as all these governments profit from the sales of tobacco, then the hypocritical buggars ban advertising due to the medical costs,

The way I see it, it is draconian as shutting drive-thru bottle shops to combat drink driving, what about mandating that fast food outlets have car parks 1 km away so you can walk off the obesity.

I have digressed, Dixie flatline, my angst is directed to the fools running the system, not you, I apologise if any offence was taken, please forgive me, unless you are a member of the FIA, now don't get me started on that!