Tobacco/Cigarette Sponsorship In Motorsport

[Statto]

As Tobacco/Cigarette Sponsorship is being/has been banned from motorsport

What are your views on this. Was it a good thing for the sport? and was it/is it necessary for the sport? Or are you/were you against the influx of companies looking to advertise in the sport.

Also not just Tobacco/Cigarette Sponsorship but are you swayed by other companies advertising in the sport? Would you go and buy a product because you saw the company name on the side of the car?

Interested to hear your views

Ben

[Mark]

Overall I think it has been good for the sport. Maybe in the 1980's it was acceptable for cars to be sponsored by tobacco companies but recently there has been a massive shift in opinion against smoking and F1 does well not to be associated with it.

Many thought removing the tobacco sponsorship would result in the death of F1, but other sponsors have been found.

[V12]

I am a smoker. However during the tobacco sponsorship "boom" in F1, I didn't (was a bit young to be honest, but there were people my age in school who did smoke). I didn't really start till I was in Uni and stuff.

I smoke Marlboros - why? Well because of their extensive motorsport sponsorship, it wasn't a conscious choice, they were just the most well known to me.

So in a nutshell, going from personal experience anyway, tobacco sponsorship didn't make me want to start smoking. But when I did, it DID influence what brand I went with.

As far as my views on banning it goes? Well to be honest I think it's quite sad and another example of the nanny state that this world currently is. There are many reasons people start smoking: peer pressure, experimentation, etc. But I'm pretty sure some stickers slapped on the side of a racing car isn't one of them.

And of course it had that unfortunate side-effect of making the sport even MORE reliant on manufacturer cash, leading to the state we're currently in.

Either ban cigarettes altogether, or allow them to be advertised, anything else is just hypocritical

[leopard]

Overall I think it has been good for the sport. Maybe in the 1980's it was acceptable for cars to be sponsored by tobacco companies but recently there has been a massive shift in opinion against smoking and F1 does well not to be associated with it.

Many thought removing the tobacco sponsorship would result in the death of F1, but other sponsors have been found.

Agree, I think the same that the presence of tobacco in the sport and prohibition on tobacco advertising controversy is perceived differently.
Like any other products advertisement, the first thing they want to achieve from sponsoring F1 or to put their product name on car is brand awareness.

There is not any special treatment for tobacco, it is just like any other product, they shower their money off for the team, whenever the product advertisement is ethically unacceptable, teams have to find different partners.

The question whether or not we buy product because being written on car, back to the brand awareness reasoning, we will not buy product we doesn't know.

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't agree with banning the advertising of legal products. If it's down to morals, ethics and health concerns, why are liquor, beer and fast food companies allowed as sponsors?

[AndyL]

Tobacco sponsorship was responsible for some of the smartest car liveries.

[christophulus]

I've never smoked but that's through my own choice, not because of any advertising ban. But right or wrong, I don't think motorsport had any other option but to comply once the EU had decided to ban tobacco advertising. It doesn't seem to have hurt any of the teams though, costs had to come down sooner or later and new sponsors were easy enough to find a few years back.

Have I ever bought something advertised on the cars? Nope. Although by chance, my bank is RBS, my shaver is Philips and my printer is HP. And not because they're Williams' backers :)

[harvick#1]

I don't agree with banning the advertising of legal products. If it's down to morals, ethics and health concerns, why are liquor, beer and fast food companies allowed as sponsors?


+1 I've never understood that one neither. with everyone saying smoking gives you cancer, well what doesn't, the sun gives you skin cancer.

fast food joints destroy your body (watch Supersize Me)

liquor and beer can kill you in one night by overdose or driving.


yet smoking is always targeted as evil, I don't smoke and choose not to, I've done it before and don't care to ever again. but the product is legal, so why the big deal of a sponsorship

[BDunnell]

Overall, I don't think it has harmed F1, and I am in favour of banning tobacco advertising across the board, so its effects haven't been adverse in the slightest. Whether it has had the slightest effect in terms of stopping anyone from smoking, no-one surely has any idea.

[D-Type]

Speaking as an ex-smoker, I agree with V12 - sponsorship didn't make me smoke or smoke more but it did affect my choice of brand. I definitely chose to smoke Gold Leaf for a while. Later when I switched to a lower tar cigarette I naturally gravitated towards Silk Cut.

[tintop]

Speaking as an ex-smoker, I agree with V12 - sponsorship didn't make me smoke or smoke more but it did affect my choice of brand. I definitely chose to smoke Gold Leaf for a while. Later when I switched to a lower tar cigarette I naturally gravitated towards Silk Cut.

Silk Cut Jags: What amazing sounding cars. I snuck through the woods to see them tearing down the mulsanne straight at night, can still feel the vibrations.

[Jag_Warrior]

Speaking as an ex-smoker, I agree with V12 - sponsorship didn't make me smoke or smoke more but it did affect my choice of brand. I definitely chose to smoke Gold Leaf for a while. Later when I switched to a lower tar cigarette I naturally gravitated towards Silk Cut.

If I came across a pack, I'd buy a pack of Silk Cuts just to put in my Jaguar shrine.

I admit that I'll consider a company's products a little harder if they're a sponsor. I needed a TV set for the bedroom. So I looked really hard at LG. I've read good reviews on LG, and the fact that it's a sponsor was a plus. Samsung won out because of price and features though.

[tintop]

As Tobacco/Cigarette Sponsorship is being/has been banned from motorsport

What are your views on this. Was it a good thing for the sport? and was it/is it necessary for the sport? Or are you/were you against the influx of companies looking to advertise in the sport.

Also not just Tobacco/Cigarette Sponsorship but are you swayed by other companies advertising in the sport? Would you go and buy a product because you saw the company name on the side of the car?

Interested to hear your views

Ben

Ben, I hope that you aren't using this a part of a serious marketing survey. :s mokin:

[Mark]

I'd be less concerned about the effects sponsorship had on the public but more the effect of being assosciated with tobacco products would have on Formula 1 if they still carried them.

Remember it wasn't so long ago we were being told that there would be a wholesale move away from Europe to countries which allowed tobacco advertising, and remember how the cars always looked quite different in certain races because of local laws.

It's good that those times are behind us.

[V12]

Remember it wasn't so long ago we were being told that there would be a wholesale move away from Europe

To be fair, that's looking like being just an excuse, now it's "substandard circuits" or "lack of government funding", i.e. not enough £$£$£$£ to line Bernie's pocket.

But to be honest you're right on that one. I don't criticise F1 for getting rid of tobacco sponsorship - they had to, I'd rather criticise the corrupt and beaurocratic EU for treating us all like three year olds who can't think for themselves.

[PolePosition_1]

I'm an out of sight out of mind kind of person. So I'm for all this 'nanny state' stuff, where we have horrible pictures on packets, hiding the packets under the counter etc.

Unfortunately I smoke, but do think it is easier to not smoke with all of what happens in todays world, banning of smoking indoors, banning of advertising etc.

though I do think it is a hugely important part of F1, due to the symbolic cars during that era, which happened to be covered in tobacco advertising.

[Vitesse]

As Tobacco/Cigarette Sponsorship is being/has been banned from motorsport

What are your views on this. Was it a good thing for the sport? and was it/is it necessary for the sport? Or are you/were you against the influx of companies looking to advertise in the sport.

Also not just Tobacco/Cigarette Sponsorship but are you swayed by other companies advertising in the sport? Would you go and buy a product because you saw the company name on the side of the car?

Interested to hear your views

Ben
Do we get a fee for contributing to your coursework?

[BDunnell]

I admit that I'll consider a company's products a little harder if they're a sponsor.

Must say, this has never even crossed my mind. When I used to smoke, it was generally Marlboro, but there was no motorsport-related reason for this.

As for bans, anything that stops even a few people smoking is fine by me. Yes, people can make up their own minds, but the specific effects of the act of smoking on those who do not partake themselves makes this a bit different to alcohol, for instance, in my view.

[Koz]

I smoke. I smoke Marlboro, tried other brands, prefered this one. Had nothing to do with motorsport.
I was and a fan of Ferrari and Peugeot WRC). But I tell you surely I did not start smoking because them.

Sure maybe I'd be inclined to a buy a product from a sponsor of whatever team, but only if I was in the market for that product in the first place.

I like Red Bull

[CNR]

not sure what country's run what sort of anti smoking ads
but would you like to see something like this on the cars
http://www.thai-blogs.com/media/cigarettes_03.jpg

[BDunnell]

Might be difficult to incorporate that into a smart, coherent, corporate design. Still, I'd like to see someone giving it a go.

[D28]

In principle I am against government curtailment of advertising of a legal substance, so I am in favour of tobacco support for motor racing. From a Canadian perpective, Imperial Tobacco provided generous support for the sport for almost 40 years, including sponsorship of the Canadian GP and major sportscar events. The company helped the careers of a group of talented racers in the 80s and 90s, people like J. Villeneuve, G. Moore, A. Tagliani, and P. Tracy. When the Canadian government banned tobacco advertising, predictably the supply of young drivers dried up, no company was prepared to spend the necessary money on development series. The Canadian GP has struggled to find alternate sponsorship and governments have more important priorities.

I did smoke for a brief period but was able to quit without much difficulty. Advertising never induced me to smoke, but I welcomed Players support of motorsport.

[big_sw2000]

Silk Cut Jags: What amazing sounding cars. I snuck through the woods to see them tearing down the mulsanne straight at night, can still feel the vibrations.
Yes i may of seen you track side then, the noise increddible. 1988 Silkcut Jags, probley had the best colour sceme of any racing car. Although i am a fan of the black and gold John Player lotus, and ofcourse red and White Malboro sponsership.
But think of all those nice colour scemes.
Red and White Lucky Strike
Rothermans, an other nice colour sceme.
Subarus blue 555 colour sceme, that was ciguretts i think.
Oh now my mind as gone blank. :confused:

[52Paddy]

Just to join the crowd, I smoke Benson & Hedges. Why? Because they're the best cigarette I've tried so far and don't care to smoke anything else right now. I've never followed Jordon patriotically. Though I always liked to see underdogs and privateers score well anyway.

A few weeks ago, I met a Hungarian guy one night when out in town with my friends. He had a packet of West cigarettes (not widely available in Ireland) and immediately I was reminded of McLaren. And they were good cigarettes too!

But I would be a smoker whether or not it was in motorsport. My choice of brand has not been influenced by motorsport completely. What I mean is, if I see a tobacco sponsored car, I will be likely to try out that brand. If I don't like them, I won't stay with them purely because they sponsor a team I may support.

In summary, I believe tobacco sponsorship brought more benefits to F1 and outweighed the negatives (if any!)


I'd rather criticise the corrupt and beaurocratic EU for treating us all like three year olds who can't think for themselves.

I like it! :up:

[RaceFanStan]

Winston (aka RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company) sponsored the top series in NASCAR for 33 years ...
(Winston Cup Series, 1971 thru 2003)
they were a great series sponsor & helped develop the series to the top.
(After Winston left, car sponsorship became a real battle for some, re: AT&T, Cingular, Altel, etc)

Winston didn't push their cigs onto unwary people ...
free cigs were offered at the racetracks to the SMOKERS ...
smoke or not to smoke as always is the individual's choice ...
IMO racing sponsorship cannot be legitimately be presented as being a factor in that choice. http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/icons/tongue-anim.gif

[Sonic]

I know this will make me sound like a dumb **** but as a kid growing up watching F1 I had zero idea that most of the adverts on cars were for cigs.

Malboro I knew, but camel and later on rothmans meant nothing to me.

So did F1 fag advertising turn me into a chimney. Hell no. Never touched one. Nor am I lilely to go out and buy a vodafone just coz its all down the side of a car. The vast majority of us can all make reasoned choices - and as my little story shows I'm guessing most kids were just like me and thought nothing of the ads on the car.

[leopard]

not sure what country's run what sort of anti smoking ads
but would you like to see something like this on the cars
http://www.thai-blogs.com/media/cigarettes_03.jpg

clove cigarettes might not be that worse, it might relieve cough ;)

[Jag_Warrior]

What I continue to find frustrating is not being able to buy diecasts with the correct livery. I've felt like a drug addict when I've "made deals" to get a Marlboro Penske, McLaren or Ferrari. The only way I could get Camel decals for my Lotus F1 cars was to order them seperately. I went to a CART race years ago and asked about getting the correct Marlboro livery for a Penske I was interested in (Fittipaldi's car). The guy looked me over, looked around and told me to come back later... we would talk. After the practice session, I came back and he pulled a Penske with Marlboro decals from under the table. I paid him (a lot extra) and he said, "remember, you didn't buy that here!" :rolleyes:

IMO, this is a perfect example of the "nanny state" gone foolish. I just don't see that having Marlboro, Camel or Silk Cut (still don't know how I was able to get those prelaid on my Jag XJR's - don't tell the Feds that I got 'em!) decals on $50-$200 diecast collectibles poisons the minds of the young, and encourages them to smoke. And anyone who allows their kid to turn a $100 Marlboro liveried diecast into a rolling floor toy, that kid is probably going to be smoking imported Cuban cigars.

[chuck34]

I know this will make me sound like a dumb **** but as a kid growing up watching F1 I had zero idea that most of the adverts on cars were for cigs.

Malboro I knew, but camel and later on rothmans meant nothing to me.

So did F1 fag advertising turn me into a chimney. Hell no. Never touched one. Nor am I lilely to go out and buy a vodafone just coz its all down the side of a car. The vast majority of us can all make reasoned choices - and as my little story shows I'm guessing most kids were just like me and thought nothing of the ads on the car.

I'm with you on that one. Maybe because I'm fromt the US and we don't have some of the same brands as Europe. I knew Marlboro and Camel, but you just told me about Rothmans. Benson and Hedges I only knew about after they did the "Be on Edge" deal. Same for West and "David". Actually now that I think about it, the advertising "ban" probably did more for my tobacco awareness than anything else.

But none of this made me a smoker. I tried it once (peer pressure I suppose), and hated it. Now Cigars I like on occasion. Not sure the difference.

[big_sw2000]

I know this will make me sound like a dumb **** but as a kid growing up watching F1 I had zero idea that most of the adverts on cars were for cigs.

Malboro I knew, but camel and later on rothmans meant nothing to me.

So did F1 fag advertising turn me into a chimney. Hell no. Never touched one. Nor am I lilely to go out and buy a vodafone just coz its all down the side of a car. The vast majority of us can all make reasoned choices - and as my little story shows I'm guessing most kids were just like me and thought nothing of the ads on the car.
Yes agree, growing up in the 80s, i new Malboro, John Player Specials were cigis, and Silk Cut but that was it. They were just awsome coloured sponsers.
And as i dont smoke, tey had no effect on me.

[big_sw2000]

What I continue to find frustrating is not being able to buy diecasts with the correct livery. I've felt like a drug addict when I've "made deals" to get a Marlboro Penske, McLaren or Ferrari. The only way I could get Camel decals for my Lotus F1 cars was to order them seperately. I went to a CART race years ago and asked about getting the correct Marlboro livery for a Penske I was interested in (Fittipaldi's car). The guy looked me over, looked around and told me to come back later... we would talk. After the practice session, I came back and he pulled a Penske with Marlboro decals from under the table. I paid him (a lot extra) and he said, "remember, you didn't buy that here!" :rolleyes:

IMO, this is a perfect example of the "nanny state" gone foolish. I just don't see that having Marlboro, Camel or Silk Cut (still don't know how I was able to get those prelaid on my Jag XJR's - don't tell the Feds that I got 'em!) decals on $50-$200 diecast collectibles poisons the minds of the young, and encourages them to smoke. And anyone who allows their kid to turn a $100 Marlboro liveried diecast into a rolling floor toy, that kid is probably going to be smoking imported Cuban cigars.
I got an Oynx 1/43 scale Le Mans winning xjr8, which has no Silk Cut decals on it at all, in fact the car is almost totaly white.
Got a 1/24 plastic kit f the car, and had to order the correct decals seperate on ebay.
And if you wont the Diecast 1/12 scale Le Mans winner from 1988, it cost well over £150, and comes in British Racing Green. :eek:

[philipbain]

Tobacco sponsorship was responsible for some of the smartest car liveries.

Agreed, tobacco companies gave the cars some great liveries, banks backing teams results in the current Renault livery - enough said! Plus they were willing to spend large amounts of money over a prolonged period on the sport and I very much doubt that the ban on tobacco sponsorship in F1 has had any direct impact what so ever on the number of people smoking, which is what the ban was supposed to be about.

[leopard]

That was because strong tendency on 'going against the flow'. Many of us already in the state seeing products like tobacco, beer or wherever going against the flow are deemed cool.

Any color scheme of the car would never be able to beat tobacco or beer sponsored colors. If not Marlboro, Lucky Strike, 555, Camel or any tobacco products color, we will notice that cars sponsored by the likes of Warstainer, Johnnie walker, Corona or say the least of Coca cola, Pepsi, Greensands looked better than those sponsored by other than aforesaid products.

Our mind already strongly associated with the products, as strong as their efficacy to make us addicted on tobacco and beer. The ban have its own upside and downside, as usual. We might not see beautiful color of tobacco on cars, they didn't support the race anymore which may cause teams have to make budget cut-off, but the positive side it may decrease escalating amount of people smoking, at least it supports those who are trying to lessen smoking or quit altogether, including me...

[AndyRAC]

I'm with you on that one. Maybe because I'm fromt the US and we don't have some of the same brands as Europe. I knew Marlboro and Camel, but you just told me about Rothmans. Benson and Hedges I only knew about after they did the "Be on Edge" deal. Same for West and "David". Actually now that I think about it, the advertising "ban" probably did more for my tobacco awareness than anything else.

But none of this made me a smoker. I tried it once (peer pressure I suppose), and hated it. Now Cigars I like on occasion. Not sure the difference.

If I remember rightly it used to be only Germany & UK were the were no Tobacco ads, so we had different liveries, some which were quite clever;

West Zakspeed - East Zakspeed
Marlboro McLaren - IIIIIIIIII McLaren
Benson & Hedges Jordan - Bitten & Hisses, Be On Edge Jordan
Rothmans Williams - Racing Williams
Camel Lotus - Lotus (written in the Camel style font).
Marlboro Ferrari - IIIIIII ////// Marlboro sign Ferrari

I also seem to remember McLaren written on the rear wing in the same font as Marlboro.

Interestingly Ducati still have Marlboro livery for some races, whereas Ferrari have chosen not to.

As for die-cast models and Tamiya kits - I make the correct decals myself.

Anyway, I'm not a smoker, and have never even considered taking it up, and i would consider it 'nanny state' but such is life.

[leopard]

Anyway, I'm not a smoker, and have never even considered taking it up, and i would consider it 'nanny state' but such is life.

Don't you think it's a great pity, try anything - at least once. ;)

[wedge]

I think sponsorship had an effect on me as a kid. I remember I found a packet of Marlboro and B&H and tried to smoke them but was too young and naive to know that you had to light it become intoxicated.

The practices of tobacco companies have been completely wrong. They used to give out free packets at races but did they give them out to kids? What they've done in Africa have been completely wrong and is no different to crack dealers giving out free samples to potheads.

Will you lot please stop talking about cigarettes?

Some of us have recently quit!

[big_sw2000]

Always rember my 1st motor race. Silverstone 1987 Group C.
Had followed the series for a coouple of years, looking at pictures in mags etc.
Could never understand how Derick Bell, normally drives a Rothamans Porsche, was driving in a car sponsered by Autoglass.

[52Paddy]

Will you lot please stop talking about cigarettes?

Some of us have recently quit!

If you posted this a few days ago I'd ignore you. But since Sunday I've been making an effort too, and succeeding so far :up:

Albeit that its completely to do with expense and not the health factors.

[V12]

I do appreciate the "out of sight, out of mind" approach to quitting fags, tried it myself, but no matter how much advertising you restrict, or forum discussions on the topic that you avoid, there's always someone walking past you in the street smoking, or a group of people stood outside a pub, or a friend, workmate etc. lighting up.

To properly succeed at quitting you need to be able to face it head on, to have someone smoking right next to you and for you to be able to say "no, I don't want one" - that's when you've cracked it. And I'm not being preachy here, because I sure as hell haven't managed it yet, and if it was that easy nobody in the world would smoke :)

In any case good luck tamburello hope you do better than my (admittedly half-hearted) attempts!

[leopard]

But since Sunday I've been making an effort too, and succeeding so far :up:

Albeit that its completely to do with expense and not the health factors.

:D ;)