[Team] Ferrari's Marlboro sponsorship

[davyboy]

Given all the cigarette advertising and sponsorship bans, can somebody explain how this is still allowed.

Ferrari extends its Marlboro sponsorship contract

[jab]

It's allowed because it was never made illegal. The departure of the tobacco companies (Japan Tobacco aka Mild Seven, BAT aka Lucky Strike, Reemtsma aka West, and Phillip Morris aka Marlboro) was down to an agreement made between the parent companies, which Phillip Morris...chose not to stick to

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by jab

It's allowed because it was never made illegal. The departure of the tobacco companies (Japan Tobacco aka Mild Seven, BAT aka Lucky Strike, Reemtsma aka West, and Phillip Morris aka Marlboro) was down to an agreement made between the parent companies, which Phillip Morris...chose not to stick to

Interesting and amazing... I didn't know that and I bet a lot others didn't either. Shame on Marlboro and Ferrari.

[Mr V]

Funny that it may be allowed, when, reading somewhere this morning, the Lotus team (Renault, not Fernandes) may not be allowed to race at Canada using the black and gold livery as it's (still) associated with JPS.

[Teretonga]

The various government bans were on advertising the product, not making it....

It amazes me that if the product is so toxic and against the public interest why it wasn't banned outright...

Too Hard? Yes it would have been too hard and no government would have the courage to do straight off. So they raised the taxes to discourage people from purchasing it...
F1 acknowledged the various national bans and eliminated advertisng on F1 cars...

My view is that the companies should be allowed to advertise unless the product is illegal to manufacture and sell..... To suggest they can't spend their money on sponsorship if thats what they want to do is ludicrous.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

It amazes me that if the product is so toxic and against the public interest why it wasn't banned outright...

The various governments rely on the high taxation income cigarettes provide towards their budget. They need people to smoke. Its just those govts public profiles that says otherwise.

Should they be banned, cigarettes would still get to the smokers via the black market and the govt doesnt get to tax that. Not to mention the cost of policing a total ciggy ban.

[davyboy]

The debate on banning cigarettes is a slightly different subject, but the ban on advertising them was clear. I had also understood that Formula One had outlawed sponsorship as well advertising... and it appears they did, but with the exception of Ferrari and Marlboro. That's the shameful thing.

[touringlegend]

I was under the impression that Marlboro (or Phillip Morris) bought the space on the car livery and were able to re-sell to other, non tobacco sponsors?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Given all the cigarette advertising and sponsorship bans, can somebody explain how this is still allowed.

Ferrari extends its Marlboro sponsorship contract

What I want to know is how you are allowed to post such an immoral thread with a cigarette manufacture in the thread title.

Also, I would have to question your motives. Are you sponsored by Marlboro?

[Bononi]

That's all very suspicious !

[Oran Park Forever]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The debate on banning cigarettes is a slightly different subject, but the ban on advertising them was clear. I had also understood that Formula One had outlawed sponsorship as well advertising... and it appears they did, but with the exception of Ferrari and Marlboro. That's the shameful thing.

Yeah it sounds as if Ferrari have been given some sort of 'secret agreement' with the F1 power brokers!............gee that's NEVER happened before!

Next thing we'll hear is Monaco apparently doesn't meet the safety requirements for F1 circuits!...........how long's their contract?....oh yeah, forever!

F1 needs both of the above, so they do as they please.

[Knowlesy]

I am so upset right now.

[Spritle]

I am so upset I may just light up a fag!

I BELIEVE the ban was/is on adverts; in other words, branding on the car not corporate sponsorship.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by E.B

The various governments rely on the high taxation income cigarettes provide towards their budget. They need people to smoke. Its just those govts public profiles that says otherwise.

Should they be banned, cigarettes would still get to the smokers via the black market and the govt doesnt get to tax that. Not to mention the cost of policing a total ciggy ban.

Yeah I understand all that....just taking up the position of the 'devils advocate'......

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by E.B

The various governments rely on the high taxation income cigarettes provide towards their budget. They need people to smoke. Its just those govts public profiles that says otherwise.

Should they be banned, cigarettes would still get to the smokers via the black market and the govt doesnt get to tax that. Not to mention the cost of policing a total ciggy ban.

Governments also need people to smoke as a form of population control, too many people stop smoking, they then stop dying of smoking related illnesses and before long we have an overcrowding problem!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Governments also need people to smoke as a form of population control, too many people stop smoking, they then stop dying of smoking related illnesses and before long we have an overcrowding problem!

That plan is obviously not working. However, they're now trying to combat that problem with the introduction of blanket smog areas in many developing countries.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Adam43

What I want to know is how you are allowed to post such an immoral thread with a cigarette manufacture in the thread title.

Because you let me

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by E.B

The various governments rely on the high taxation income cigarettes provide towards their budget. They need people to smoke. Its just those govts public profiles that says otherwise.

Should they be banned, cigarettes would still get to the smokers via the black market and the govt doesnt get to tax that. Not to mention the cost of policing a total ciggy ban.

Nail on the head etc etc.

[Icebaby]

Great news, I'm all for tobacco advertising, if I want to smoke I dont need the goverment to tell me and nor will a car advertising the brand sway me. F1 fans have enough of an IQ to follow a similar train of thought.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Icebaby

Great news, I'm all for tobacco advertising, if I want to smoke I dont need the goverment to tell me

It appears I got things the wrong way around. I thought the government were telling us not to smoke

[Peralta]

I say bring back cigarrette advertising/sponsorship that way teAms can afford to pick deserved(fast) drivers instead of relying on drivers(slow) to come up with the necessary funding.

[Peralta]

We can say that Marlboro own the Ferrari race team or at least 70% of it. That's how they get away with it. They pay the drivers salaries etc. That's why the whole car is void of any sponsors because they own the space. Ferrari can't sell that space cause it is owned by them. Marlboro knows that the public know it's Marlboro without any mention of it. Sort of like JPS. No mention of the brand but we all know who it is.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Peralta

I say bring back cigarrette advertising/sponsorship that way teAms can afford to pick deserved(fast) drivers instead of relying on drivers(slow) to come up with the necessary funding.

Couldn't agree more!

The manufacturers and car would also be unable to force rubbish technology into F1, and the racing would become important once again.

[cmk]

I realize that not every jurisdiction allows alcohol advertising, but I have always been surprised by the relatively low number of sponsors in the booze industry that have appeared in F1 in recent times. I know there are a couple (Diageo, Flagman Vodka) and some tangential ones (don''t tell me Kingfisher Airlines doesn't passively advertise Kingfisher beer) but it seems luxury spirits are under-represented. Grey*Goose Racing anyone? Patron had some success in that regard in the ALMS with Highcroft, a deal that is sadly no longer.

That or, as the world changes, every F1 team will end up being sponsored by companies marketing (probably crappy) pot...

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Peralta

I say bring back cigarrette advertising/sponsorship that way teAms can afford to pick deserved(fast) drivers instead of relying on drivers(slow) to come up with the necessary funding.

Renault are doing just that..