Marlb-er, *ahem* Ferrari's new logo - Page 2

Mr V · 30 Mar 2011, 05:24 (Ref:2855707)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

Is cigarette advertising forbidden in F1 ?

Any form of cigarette advertising within the european union is forbidden, this includes F1. Cars may be allowed to run with fag advertising, but then the TV companies wouldn't be allowed to show the cars on screen, which i'm sure would lose Bernie money, so basiclly yer, it is forbidden

**Bononi** · 30 Mar 2011, 11:29 (Ref:2855832)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr V

Any form of cigarette advertising within the european union is forbidden, this includes F1. Cars may be allowed to run with fag advertising, but then the TV companies wouldn't be allowed to show the cars on screen, which i'm sure would lose Bernie money, so basiclly yer, it is forbidden

That's where Ferrari is getting away with it...

Greem · 31 Mar 2011, 08:18 (Ref:2856252)

Personally I don't think it looks anything like the Marlboro logo. If I was a 10 year old I'm pretty sure I wouldn't put the two things together without being told. If nobody talked about it, it wouldn't have worked.

But... we're all talking about it. Ergo, masterful piece of logo design, and a very clever piece of sponsorship.

HughGJohnson · 3 Apr 2011, 12:14 (Ref:2857900)

I don't think it looks a great deal like the Marlboro logo 'in a vacuum.' However, in the context of where it is on the car and what came before it... I definitely believe it's meant to remind you of what was there. I wouldn't doubt that the new Scuderia Ferrari logo was designed for that purpose. Maybe not, but it sure works.

Personally, I don't have anything against smoking (at a distance from me), tabacco ads or free speech. I don't know what the problem was with the barcode. I just wonder if the barcode was giving sweet and innocent school children lung cancer

, why is this new logo ok?

edit: I just noticed that you can see part of the Marlboro sponsorship in my avatar. Am I in on the conspiracy, too?

**Adam43** · 3 Apr 2011, 13:10 (Ref:2857956)

You are killing people.

Marbot · 3 Apr 2011, 13:17 (Ref:2857967)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HughGJohnson

edit: I just noticed that you can see part of the Marlboro sponsorship in my avatar. Am I in on the conspiracy, too?

I guess we'll all have to be very careful about letting those little glimpses of cigarette advertising ads slip through into our posts in future.........Damn! How'd that get in there!

b1ackcr0w · 3 Apr 2011, 15:18 (Ref:2858032)

To be fair, advertising is quite effective at selling stuff. Like the cheap tarts selling car wax and alloy wheels in lycra at Autosport. They always remind me to buy more Satsumas if we've run out.

Razor · 3 Apr 2011, 15:22 (Ref:2858035)

I can see your point Hugh. Ducati in the MotoGP run practically the same logo (change Ferrari branding with Ducati's of course) and they are also sponsored by Marlboro.

JeremySmith · 3 Apr 2011, 17:13 (Ref:2858109)

Quote:

Originally Posted by b1ackcr0w

To be fair, advertising is quite effective at selling stuff. Like the cheap tarts selling car wax and alloy wheels in lycra at Autosport. They always remind me to buy more Satsumas if we've run out.

I quite like cheap tarts...

Mr V · 3 Apr 2011, 22:47 (Ref:2858272)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam43

You are killing people.

Only if they are brain dead

**Bononi** · 4 Apr 2011, 11:31 (Ref:2858517)

If you are not killing people, at least you're not saving them...

csirl · 6 Apr 2011, 13:52 (Ref:2859691)

I have a problem with tobacco sponsorship being allowed, even if the tobacco company is not allowed to display the logos on cars etc. It means the sport is still supported by the tobacco industry and is still being used as a promotional tool by the tobacco industry. Marlboro dont give money to Ferrari out of charity - they do it because, regardless of the logo rules, it encourages people to smoke their cigarettes.

I think the powers that be inadvertantly missed a trick when they made the rules. When they banned tobacco logos, they never considered that the sponsorship would remain and that the associated promotion of tobacco products would become more sophisticated.

Tobacco sponsorship/funding should be banned full stop.

Matt · 6 Apr 2011, 14:24 (Ref:2859703)

Quote:

Originally Posted by csirl

I have a problem with tobacco sponsorship being allowed, even if the tobacco company is not allowed to display the logos on cars etc. It means the sport is still supported by the tobacco industry and is still being used as a promotional tool by the tobacco industry. Marlboro dont give money to Ferrari out of charity - they do it because, regardless of the logo rules, it encourages people to smoke their cigarettes.

I think the powers that be inadvertantly missed a trick when they made the rules. When they banned tobacco logos, they never considered that the sponsorship would remain and that the associated promotion of tobacco products would become more sophisticated.

Tobacco sponsorship/funding should be banned full stop.

Why.

It's someones own personal choice if they want to smoke or not. It's not like sponsorship of a team is gonna make me wanna go out and buy cigarettes.

Super Hans · 6 Apr 2011, 14:25 (Ref:2859704)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Why.

It's someones own personal choice if they want to smoke or not. It's not like sponsorship of a team is gonna make me wanna go out and buy cigarettes.

If advertising didn't work, companies wouldn't do it.

Matt · 6 Apr 2011, 14:28 (Ref:2859706)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super Hans

If advertising didn't work, companies wouldn't do it.

****, well in that case who cares. If someone wants to voluntarily kill themselves then let them. People know what they're getting into when they start smoking, it's not like it's a big surprise to learn they have lung cancer down the line.

ASCII Man · 6 Apr 2011, 14:41 (Ref:2859709)

As if governments care about the welfare of the common folk.
If they did care, then why don't they stop taxing the crap out of it, and ban it outright?

Oh wait, it's a moneymaker, nevermind!

**Bononi** · 6 Apr 2011, 14:42 (Ref:2859710)

Advertising really works and they spend trillions in it.

Super Hans · 6 Apr 2011, 15:20 (Ref:2859729)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

****, well in that case who cares. If someone wants to voluntarily kill themselves then let them. People know what they're getting into when they start smoking, it's not like it's a big surprise to learn they have lung cancer down the line.

I don't disagree. But these threads are always full of people bragging about how they aren't influenced by advertising - but the fact is, we all are, or companies wouldn't bother.

Juarez Jed · 7 Apr 2011, 05:00 (Ref:2860000)

Interesting that in Australia they have even banned ciggie logos on the packets of smokes themselves!
So if you want to replicate the Marlboro packet on your Ferrari airbox you'll have to put a picture of a diseased eyeball or a cancerous mouth presumably !!

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226035230408

Of course the companies only ever claim that they advertise to get people to switch brands rather than take up smoking so even that will be pointless now with all the packets the same.

Sodemo · 7 Apr 2011, 07:42 (Ref:2860024)

Smoking is a lifestyle choice. No amount of advertising will *make* someone start smoking. The tobacco adverts of the past were there to tempt people to switch brands. I've watched F1 since 1985, and ive never smoked (well a cigar on my 21st).

Paradise City · 7 Apr 2011, 10:16 (Ref:2860105)

I think tobacco advertsing does subtly create a smoking culture. If so you don't neccesarily draw from that an advert ban. People should learn to be responsible for their own behaviour.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ferrari Logo	JoeKnobbe	Formula One	49	9 Oct 2002 21:36
Ahem... new rules!	Red	Formula One	32	17 Sep 2002 16:13