View Full Version : Tobacco Advertising 2007
Ranger
15th January 2007, 10:56
A question born out of my dislike for the Marlboro "barcode", What is the specific regulation regarding Tobacco advertising for teams (ie helmets, cars, suits etc) and circuits for this year?
CarlMetro
15th January 2007, 11:24
Same as it was last year as far as I know, in that there are still countries that allow tobbacco advertising and those teams with tobbacco company sponsorship will display accordingly.
Hawkmoon
15th January 2007, 12:19
I think it's banned in all of Europe now, not just some countries.
I think it's banned in Australia now too, although I could be wrong.
Somebody
15th January 2007, 18:16
Same as it was last year as far as I know, in that there are still countries that allow tobbacco advertising and those teams with tobbacco company sponsorship will display accordingly.
No, it was actually for-real banned by the F1 authorities at the end of last season (ergo BAR selling up in preparation for shipping out). Don't know the exact wording though.
ATF
16th January 2007, 16:16
So there will be NO tobacco liveries at all this year?
Nikki Katz
16th January 2007, 19:34
So there will be NO tobacco liveries at all this year?
I'm pretty sure that's right. I think it was decided by governments that they didn't want tobacco sponsors getting around the TV advertising ban by sponsoring sports, and as all sports other than F1 and darts already had a ban in place, one was imposed.
Possibly the FIA could overrule this, but I guess that would mean that the Ferraris wouldn't be able to be broadcast in Europe. And seeing as they're championship favourites...
harvick#1
16th January 2007, 20:07
So there will be NO tobacco liveries at all this year?
that bul-**** :mad: there are alcohol sponsorships allowed and alcohol kills people as well, even water can kill you. I've seen the Marlboro/Winston/555/lucky strike sponsorships and never thought to my self, I better buy that product, I don't smoke but I don't get offended when a tobacco sponsorship is out their, I'm more pisted off at those sex drugs
luvracin
16th January 2007, 20:19
I'm more pisted off at those sex drugs
Ah yes, who can ever forget the stiff competition Mark Martin put up in his Viagra sponsored NASCAR. :)
Dagman
16th January 2007, 21:16
But didn't anyone notice that Kimi and Massa had Marboro logos on the uniforms?
What's up with that he wonders...
schmenke
16th January 2007, 21:20
I guess it depends where they were when the pics were taken. Toboacco logos are not permitted on cars or drivers' clothing when competing in a country that has anti-tobacco sponsorship laws.
Dagman
16th January 2007, 21:25
I guess it depends where they were when the pics were taken. Toboacco logos are not permitted on cars or drivers' clothing when competing in a country that has anti-tobacco sponsorship laws.
But would then mean that the sport has not banned it? and it's just about the countries?
I remeber they where going to ban it in F1 and they had a date, but when the EU moved up their dates, Bernie said f**k it. But i haven't head for sure.
Mihai
16th January 2007, 21:26
that bul-**** :mad: there are alcohol sponsorships allowed and alcohol kills people as well, even water can kill you. I've seen the Marlboro/Winston/555/lucky strike sponsorships and never thought to my self, I better buy that product, I don't smoke but I don't get offended when a tobacco sponsorship is out their, I'm more pisted off at those sex drugs
It's a very primitive way to think: "Even if I saw tobacco liveries, I didn't become a smoker". Maybe you're an exeptionally gifted individual who makes the right choices. But you have to think about teens and other people who start smoking their favorite driver's brand of cigarettes. You know a lot about NASCAR and I guess you're fully aware of the fans' loyalty to a product advertised in NASCAR. Fortunately, NASCAR had it banned years ago, but F1 is still to make this step on all its races, not just in Europe.
Dispaying their logos on the cars is a perverted way to avoid those regulations imposed in many civilised countries, forcing the tobacco manufacturer to write a warning on every box of cigarettes and on every advertisment on the street or on magazines. Such as "Smoking kills" or "Smoking is the cause of lung cancer" on 20% of the surface (more or less, depending on each country). I think it was a recomendation by the EU Comission last year to display on the pacs of cigarettes disturbing pictures of people suffering of smoking-caused cancers and other deadly diseases. How about a beautiful red Ferrari with some disgusting pictures next to the Marlboro logo?
Tobacco sponsorship was useful (although some might argue that the big cash invested by those companies generated the ever escalading costs of being competitive in F1) in the history of motorsports and other sports (who can forget the Gitanes cycling team in the 80s ?). But now it's time to kick tobacco sponsorship out of sports and out of everything to be effective in the fight against smoking.
Dagman
16th January 2007, 22:41
It's a very primitive way to think: "Even if I saw tobacco liveries, I didn't become a smoker". Maybe you're an exeptionally gifted individual who makes the right choices. But you have to think about teens and other people who start smoking their favorite driver's brand of cigarettes. You know a lot about NASCAR and I guess you're fully aware of the fans' loyalty to a product advertised in NASCAR. Fortunately, NASCAR had it banned years ago, but F1 is still to make this step on all its races, not just in Europe.
Dispaying their logos on the cars is a perverted way to avoid those regulations imposed in many civilised countries, forcing the tobacco manufacturer to write a warning on every box of cigarettes and on every advertisment on the street or on magazines. Such as "Smoking kills" or "Smoking is the cause of lung cancer" on 20% of the surface (more or less, depending on each country). I think it was a recomendation by the EU Comission last year to display on the pacs of cigarettes disturbing pictures of people suffering of smoking-caused cancers and other deadly diseases. How about a beautiful red Ferrari with some disgusting pictures next to the Marlboro logo?
Tobacco sponsorship was useful (although some might argue that the big cash invested by those companies generated the ever escalading costs of being competitive in F1) in the history of motorsports and other sports (who can forget the Gitanes cycling team in the 80s ?). But now it's time to kick tobacco sponsorship out of sports and out of everything to be effective in the fight against smoking.
Interesting....'the fight against smoking'
If counties wanted to stop smoking all they would have to do is make it illegal, and they would have done their part. However there is HUGE money in the taxes on these products, so they won't . Instead they have decided to tell private companies how they can do business and take away the sponsorships/funding.
That's millions of dollars that sport, the arts, etc have to find elsewhere. If the tobacco companies want to write off bags of cash and give it to people to sponsor their events so be it.
If your are someone who is against smoking, then all that needs to be done is for that person to not support a tobacco event. That's the way free enterprise works...
schmenke
16th January 2007, 23:25
... How about a red Ferrari with some disgusting pictures next to the Marlboro logo?...
Nah, them cars are ugly enough :p : :uhoh: :D
Mihai
16th January 2007, 23:49
If counties wanted to stop smoking all they would have to do is make it illegal, and they would have done their part.
You must have the mind of a child to think that governments would put an end to smoking by making it illegal. It would only encourage it by making it hip and it would make smugglers filthy rich (do you have any idea about how the prohibition in the US brought fortunes to the Mafia?).
Contrary to what you might think, governments in Europe, North America or New Zealand (some other countries too) want to make people responsable about the health hazards that they and those nearby are risking through smoking. It's a long term programme destined to determin people to quit smoking by their own (making them aware of these hazards), not by enforcing a prohibitive law that would have the opposite effect.
That's millions of dollars that sport, the arts, etc have to find elsewhere. If the tobacco companies want to write off bags of cash and give it to people to sponsor their events so be it.
In countries like France or New Zealand, the government bought those contracts that involved tobacco sponsorship. Public money was given to sports, culture, etc so these activities would quit tobacco sponsorship such as a smoker quits his/her deadly habit.
Instead of spending those money on sponsorship in sports/culture/you-name-it, tobacco companies now pay fat taxes to the governments, so the money still goes into the public financial system.
Somebody
17th January 2007, 13:31
But didn't anyone notice that Kimi and Massa had ******* logos on the uniforms?
What's up with that he wonders...
Actually, if you look, they don't have "real" tobacco logos on their suits, but the ones used in the non-tobacco races of the past few years. Phillip Morris are the only tobacco company not to just give into reason, and as such, although the Ferrari's don't have blatant logos on their car, they've still got the weird "barcodes". While the tobacco product in question will have Ferraris on their packets...
Interesting....'the fight against smoking'
If counties wanted to stop smoking all they would have to do is make it illegal, and they would have done their part.
Yes. That's why there are no heroin addicts in the US, and why alcohol Prohibition worked in the 1920s there...
And you can say "well, tobacco logos never got me to start smoking." But if that was a universal truth why would the companies waste money on advertising?!
schmenke
17th January 2007, 17:15
...And you can say "well, tobacco logos never got me to start smoking." But if that was a universal truth why would the companies waste money on advertising?!
I think it has to do more with brand loyalty. You're right that logos don't necesserily get people to start smoking, but they just may get current smokers to switch brands.
Zeus
18th January 2007, 17:10
Actually, if you look, they don't have "real" tobacco logos on their suits, but the ones used in the non-tobacco races of the past few years. Phillip Morris are the only tobacco company not to just give into reason, and as such, although the Ferrari's don't have blatant logos on their car, they've still got the weird "barcodes". While the tobacco product in question will have Ferraris on their packets...
Ferrari have also dropped Marlboro from the team name. They were entered as Scudera Ferrari Marlboro now they are just Scudera Ferrari on the official FIA list.
Dagman
18th January 2007, 19:09
You must have the mind of a child to think that governments would put an end to smoking by making it illegal. It would only encourage it by making it hip and it would make smugglers filthy rich (do you have any idea about how the prohibition in the US brought fortunes to the Mafia?).
Contrary to what you might think, governments in Europe, North America or New Zealand (some other countries too) want to make people responsable about the health hazards that they and those nearby are risking through smoking. It's a long term programme destined to determin people to quit smoking by their own (making them aware of these hazards), not by enforcing a prohibitive law that would have the opposite effect.
In countries like France or New Zealand, the government bought those contracts that involved tobacco sponsorship. Public money was given to sports, culture, etc so these activities would quit tobacco sponsorship such as a smoker quits his/her deadly habit.
Instead of spending those money on sponsorship in sports/culture/you-name-it, tobacco companies now pay fat taxes to the governments, so the money still goes into the public financial system.
Oh yes I'm trilled that my government is spending millions to 'make people aware of these hazards'. I guess I was the only one who knew smoking was bad before the government started 'educating’ the public. How stupid do you think people are?
And yes I know all about prohibition, we have drugs here too.. And at this point the natives are making a small fortune selling cheap cigarettes because the taxes are so high, so in reality it has already begun.
And I was being sarcastic as I realize the government would never outlaw this huge source of income
And here's a local example of the government cash grab -In the province of Ontario you cannot smoke indoors anywhere, and business are not allowed to have a covered smoking area outside. But the government owned casinos are allowed to build a shelter with a roof and 2 walls. Why, because they want the smokers to gamble too. Can't see any relationship to health there.
Anyway this was supposed to be about the sport… so I’ll stop there, the tax/funding thing is a whole new can of worms…
Dagman
18th January 2007, 19:21
In response to the original question I have been poking around for a couple of days. And can't seem to find anything about the sponsorships being ban by F1, just seems to be the countries
jso1985
18th January 2007, 21:16
that bul-**** :mad: there are alcohol sponsorships allowed and alcohol kills people as well, even water can kill you. I've seen the Marlboro/Winston/555/lucky strike sponsorships and never thought to my self, I better buy that product, I don't smoke but I don't get offended when a tobacco sponsorship is out their, I'm more pisted off at those sex drugs
agree!, I think alcohol is a bigger social problem than tobacco, and I consider it extremly stupid to allow booze to be sponsor cars that go fast! last time I checked, alcohol+car+speed was a deadly comobination :rolleyes:
anyway we're going off topic. back to topic: As I long as I know tobacco advertising is banned in F1, but Ferrari will still have tha barcodes in the wings.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.