Ferrari in Abu Dhabi in FULL MARLBORO branding [Archive]

agwiii

4th February 2007, 22:57

I really don't agree with banning tobacco sponsors. They are only advertising their product, not forcing people to buy it.

It's one of the favorite tunes by "Big Brother and the Socialists" to protect us from ourselves. :(

miksu

5th February 2007, 00:40

Marlboro branding on 2007 Ferraris

those are 248 's

DexDexter

5th February 2007, 17:12

I really don't agree with banning tobacco sponsors. They are only advertising their product, not forcing people to buy it.

"Only" advertising, in other words they are trying to make tobacco look "cool" and to get people smoking. They produce tobacco and try to sell it, it's as simple as that. The only problem is that tobacco can kill you. I think F1 should finally ( it's years and years too late) ban all sorts of advertising related to tobacco, even indirect.

F1boat

5th February 2007, 17:31

I hate smoking but I'm against banning.
Giving that much power to governments is not good idea.

leopard

6th February 2007, 05:03

i like something because of sensation asociated with it, smoking Marlboro make you feel better if you have to support ferrari, 555 for old BAR etc.

Ferrari and Kimi here looks better since usually tobacco product in a car will make it looks more groovy, besides being an occasional smoker isn't too bad :D

wmcot

6th February 2007, 06:34

I hate smoking but I'm against banning.
Giving that much power to governments is not good idea.

I agree totally! I can't stand cigarette smoke, but should everything I hate be banned from advertising? My brother died of alcoholism, should I demand that they ban alcohol as well if they are so interested in "health" issues? Maybe I just lost all my tax data on an HP computer that crashed - should I hate HP as a sponsor?

Mikeall

6th February 2007, 23:33

I think in the long term it is a good thing to ban tobacco sponsorship. It makes F1 more marketable to other companies as it makes F1 seem a healthier sport.

wmcot

7th February 2007, 06:31

I think in the long term it is a good thing to ban tobacco sponsorship. It makes F1 more marketable to other companies as it makes F1 seem a healthier sport.

Then alcohol advertising should go, too? That would make the sport appear even healthier!

(Especially since drinking and driving can have a more instantaneous bad consequence than smoking and driving.)

Storm

7th February 2007, 11:35

I think in the long term it is a good thing to ban tobacco sponsorship. It makes F1 more marketable to other companies as it makes F1 seem a healthier sport.

Why is appearing a healthier sport an issue? Nobody is stopping other big companies from advertising in F1 is there ? If the don't its their loss.

I agree with wmcot completely, I really hate cigarette smoke but I don't care if they (F1 teams) actually strap cigarettes onto their overalls because I watch F1 for the racing and the excitement. Not to get influenced or find out about brands via the liveries.

And the age old, tobacco is bad, so ban its advertising is a lame excuse as the people who get influenced by tobacco ads and start smoking to look cool inspite of knowing the hazards (or buy any product due to how cool it looks in adv) are idiots anyway.

DexDexter

7th February 2007, 18:16

Why is appearing a healthier sport an issue? Nobody is stopping other big companies from advertising in F1 is there ? If the don't its their loss.

I agree with wmcot completely, I really hate cigarette smoke but I don't care if they (F1 teams) actually strap cigarettes onto their overalls because I watch F1 for the racing and the excitement. Not to get influenced or find out about brands via the liveries.

And the age old, tobacco is bad, so ban its advertising is a lame excuse as the people who get influenced by tobacco ads and start smoking to look cool inspite of knowing the hazards (or buy any product due to how cool it looks in adv) are idiots anyway.

Idiots or not, if they get sick because of tobacco, they'll cost me and other tax payers a lot of money, at least in this country where health care is provided to all. Why should I pay for them being stupid? Why should tobacco companies be allowed to court stupid people?

gofastandwynn

7th February 2007, 20:07

Idiots or not, if they get sick because of tobacco, they'll cost me and other tax payers a lot of money, at least in this country where health care is provided to all. Why should I pay for them being stupid? Why should tobacco companies be allowed to court stupid people?

Ok then, why dosen't the governemt just ban tobacco? Oh thats right, because the make too much money off of it.

IMHO, you seeing a car going fast makes you want to smoke, the you have issues to deal with before you get to smoking.

I also think that the only reason people can't stop smoking is because they are weak and they don't want to. They may know that they need to stop, but they don't want to. My father smoked for decades then he decided he wanted to stop. He threw his cigs out the window of the car and never smoked a day in his life. No patch, no gum, he juts quit.

I don't like smoking, I hate the smell of it, how it soaks into you clothers, but I am not going to try to force my will onto others.

gofast out...

wmcot

8th February 2007, 05:03

I would bet that 99.999% of smokers were enticed to try it by their friends. I doubt that you could find one case worldwide where a person started smoking because he saw a logo on an F1 car.

That said, it does hinder the image of a sport. NASCAR improved its image when it went from Winston as the title sponsor to Nextel (of course cars and cell phones can be deadly, too!)

I don't like cigarettes - my parents both smoked and there was nothing I hated more than being in a closed car in the winter with both of them puffing away. My mom quit when she had most of her stomach removed due to ulcers and my dad quit when he had a heart attack. There lives were much improved after giving up the habit (and there was more money left over each month!)

Still, I'm not going to say who can and can't put a Marlboro, Mild Seven, 555, B&H, etc. logo on a racing car!

seamusoldfield

9th February 2007, 08:03

My grandmother was killed in a car accident. Maybe they should ban automobile-related advertising . . .

VresiBerba

9th February 2007, 12:04

Then alcohol advertising should go, too? That would make the sport appear even healthier!

Tobacco is 1000 times more suggestive than alcohol though. But answer this; what good would come from tobacco advertising? Name even one positive thing.

VresiBerba

9th February 2007, 12:07

My grandmother was killed in a car accident. Maybe they should ban automobile-related advertising . . .

That is a very stupid argument. My mother died from a heart attack, should we ban attacks too? The bottom line is that if tobacco is bad for health, there is NOTHING bad from banning tobacco advertising, nothing whatsoever.

fly_ac

9th February 2007, 13:02

Tobacco is 1000 times more suggestive than alcohol though. But answer this; what good would come from tobacco advertising? Name even one positive thing.

I am a tobacco (only) smoker, and I enjoy my Vodka now and then, (probably more than I should) and I can't think of anything positive about tobacco or alcohol advertising.

That being said, I did not start smoking because of advertising, I have my stupid reasons, but that's irrelevant.
I think 99,99999.....% of tobacco smoker will say the same. Banning tobacco advertising on F1 cars are not going to help to make me stop smoking or for that matter prevent anyone from starting.
I'm also not going to buy a Merc, BMW, Honda, Ferrari, Spyker, Toyota or whatever because I watch F1.

The more you tell someone they/he/she can't or are not allowed to do something the better the chance they/he/she will want to prove you wrong.

I watch F1 for the excitement that motorsport can and should deliver. I don't care who advertise what on a F1 car.

Anyone for a :s mokin:

tinchote

9th February 2007, 13:14

The more you tell someone they/he/she can't or are not allowed to do something the better the chance they/he/she will want to prove you wrong.

Absolutely. That's why making tobacco ads dissappear is a good thing. Smoking is not forbidden, but people are not reminded about it all the time.

In Canada smoking has been reduced greatly in the last two decades (enough that every time I get to Europe it surprises me when I see people smoking everywhere). One of the tools used by the government has been banning ads. Of course it was not the only thing. But it worked.

VresiBerba

9th February 2007, 14:06

I think 99,99999.....% of tobacco smoker will say the same. Banning tobacco advertising on F1 cars are not going to help to make me stop smoking or for that matter prevent anyone from starting.

Then I'm one of those 0.00001 per cent. I didn't exactly start smoking because of advertising, and just like you that's a different story, but I choose my brand ONLY because of Yamaha running tobacco advertising in Paris-Dakar. When everyone was smoking Prince (Danish brand) and Marlboro, let me tell you how unique and special I felt smoking a brand few people even heard about, or that cool brand accociated with cool motorbike riders competing in the desert.

Today I'm free from my unhealthy habit, and it was like my life took a new turn when I finally managed to quit. In my opinion motorsport have lost nothing of it's appeal just because there no longer rolling billboards for an unhealthy product.

9th February 2007, 14:12

But answer this; what good would come from tobacco advertising? Name even one positive thing.

Employment for tobacco farmers.

fly_ac

9th February 2007, 14:54

....let me tell you how unique and special I felt smoking a brand few people even heard about, or Yes, people do associate with brands to be cool or what ever, but people don't start smoking because of advertising. But please do not misunderstand; I also like to associate myself with certain brands, but not with tobacco products. So that is possibly why the impact of tobacco advertising is not important to me.

that cool brand accociated with cool motorbike riders competing in the desert..

I smoked that same brand for a short while, only to be different at the time, not for the accociation it had to motorcycles. I know quiet a few motorcycle riders and to be honest I haven't see any of them with that brand of cigarette, some with clothing from that brand (G___o__es) yes, but I guess they won't attempt to smoke that. Well some of them might. :D

In my opinion motorsport have lost nothing of it's appeal just because there no longer rolling billboards for an unhealthy product.

I agree completely

Tazio

9th February 2007, 22:47

I agree totally! I can't stand cigarette smoke, but should everything I hate be banned from advertising? My brother died of alcoholism, should I demand that they ban alcohol as well if they are so interested in "health" issues? Maybe I just lost all my tax data on an HP computer that crashed - should I hate HP as a sponsor?

Which brings up a rather obscure reason I will use in defense of tobacco advertising? There are recovering addicts who without their cigs' would dive right into their illicit drug of choice.
Upon proper guidance and education these people learn the mechanism that is what we generically call addiction.
They gain the tools and many master their addictions including smoking. Every product that is sold is advertised, even if all it does is raise cost to the consumer, without changing a single persons mind as to which brand they should use. On a more philosophical, allegorical and metaphoric level,
didn’t God advertise the apple on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to Adam and Eve?

Peace---Out

wmcot

10th February 2007, 08:12

Employment for tobacco farmers.

And doctors who specialize in pulmonary diseases!

wmcot

10th February 2007, 08:14

Tobacco is 1000 times more suggestive than alcohol though. But answer this; what good would come from tobacco advertising? Name even one positive thing.

None. But name one good thing that comes from alcohol advertising!

(You could also get into how having suggestively dressed grid girls affects sex addicts.)

VresiBerba

10th February 2007, 09:07

None. But name one good thing that comes from alcohol advertising!

None, so what?

F1boat

10th February 2007, 11:33

Today they ban tobacco. Tomorrow, they ban alcohol. Then what? Meat? I'm strictly against bans.

hacker-pschorr

11th February 2007, 07:55

"Only" advertising, in other words they are trying to make tobacco look "cool" and to get people smoking. They produce tobacco and try to sell it, it's as simple as that. The only problem is that tobacco can kill you. I think F1 should finally ( it's years and years too late) ban all sorts of advertising related to tobacco, even indirect.
Alochol is far deadlier than tobacco

ShiftingGears

11th February 2007, 08:04

Hell, lets ban people going outside as well. Theres less risks being inside. I am also against living since you eventually die from that too. I am also against people saying what people don't want to hear, they might offend someone.

Look, I think its all a load of S***.

I against bans, and I'm against bureaucrats trying to protect us from ourselves by these bans. I think the "It doesn't do anyone any favours, so lets ban it" mentality is a bad one and I think that people should be responsible for the choices they make.

DexDexter

13th February 2007, 11:02

If people didn't start/buy "things" because of advertising, there wouldn't be any advertising at all, it's really naive to think that we make all those decisions conciously, a good example being Ferrari, because of its success and image people are willing to pay huge sums of money to get that car. It's just a car. Tobacco companies have been very succesful in creating brands as well, a good example being "Rothmans" which has a great image. What is it really? A potentially deadly product with terrible addictive qualities.