Ferrari tobacco barcode [Archive]

Malbec

29th April 2010, 23:24

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/29042010/58/ferrari-spotlight-subliminal-tobacco-ads.html

found it on yahoo, why? i'm not a smoker i dont want to smoke

The obvious answer is that if Philip Morris didn't think sponsoring Ferrari resulted in a sales boost then they wouldn't bother, and as a well run multinational I suspect they know they're getting their moneys worth.

It also doesn't help F1 either, there are plenty of sponsors who still won't touch F1 because it still seems tainted by tobacco and I know that Ferrari has been under considerable pressure from other teams especially since there was a gentlemen's agreement between the teams to abandon tobacco sponsorship by 2006. BAT even sold BAR to Honda to keep within that agreement so Ferrari being sponsored by Philip Morris must grate.

ioan

29th April 2010, 23:46

The obvious answer is that if Philip Morris didn't think sponsoring Ferrari resulted in a sales boost then they wouldn't bother, and as a well run multinational I suspect they know they're getting their moneys worth.

It also doesn't help F1 either, there are plenty of sponsors who still won't touch F1 because it still seems tainted by tobacco and I know that Ferrari has been under considerable pressure from other teams especially since there was a gentlemen's agreement between the teams to abandon tobacco sponsorship by 2006. BAT even sold BAR to Honda to keep within that agreement so Ferrari being sponsored by Philip Morris must grate.

To me it doesn't look like the sponsors are jumping all over the teams who are not related to tobacco sponsorship. Take Sauber for example.

And to stretch it a bit Ferrari are having plenty of sponsors other than Philip Morris who aren't bothered to be on a car sponsored by tobacco, not to mention that they pay the fees to Philip Moriss directly who actually own the whole advertising surface of the Ferrari F1 cars.

Sponsors that do not come to F1 either don't have the money for it or they think it is not worth it, usually it's the former case.

gloomyDAY

29th April 2010, 23:54

Ha! :rolleyes: This is stupid. Don't they have something else to do?

If anything I'd like to see more cigarette sponsors back into F1.

Tobacco sponsors always seem to be the most active and fan inclusive companies on the entire paddock. As long as they don't supply cigarettes to people at the race, then I don't see a problem.

harvick#1

30th April 2010, 00:28

AndyRAC

30th April 2010, 00:43

Actually, Ferrari haven't run in full Marlboro branding for a few years - even when they were able to i;e in Monaco, Bahrain, China. Whereas, up until this year, Ducati have run the full branding in certain countries.

CNR

30th April 2010, 00:55

Q:how will they look in australia next year ?
http://www.brandonsun.com/lifestyles/breaking-news/australia-poised-to-force-tobacco-companies-to-sell-cigarettes-in-plain-packs-a-world-first-92388464.html?viewAllComments=y

Tobacco companies would be forced to use plain, logo-free packaging on their cigarettes in a bid to make them less attractive to smokers under legislation introduced Thursday by Australia's government, which dubbed the move a world-first.

gloomyDAY

30th April 2010, 01:44

Q:how will they look in australia next year ?
http://www.brandonsun.com/lifestyles/breaking-news/australia-poised-to-force-tobacco-companies-to-sell-cigarettes-in-plain-packs-a-world-first-92388464.html?viewAllComments=yOz politicians pandering to the soccer moms? Pathetic.

I really don't think Ferrari is going to run a plain red livery.
A bar-code is not going to adversely affect any Australians.

gloomyDAY

30th April 2010, 01:49

cigarettes sponsors are banned yet alcoholic sponsors are :rolleyes:

I never understood this as Alcohol kills more people...I don't understand the hypocrisy in that as well. McLaren can run around with a Johnny Walker label prominently displayed anywhere, but Ferrari can't have a bar-code on the rear wing.

I think cigs kill more people over time, but alcohol is a very destructive. Ask any doctor in the emergency room what destroys the most families. I bet they'll say alcohol. Drunk driving, domestic violence, alcohol poisoning, and the list is endless. At least cancer takes time to kill, alcohol can do it in a whim.

Saint Devote

30th April 2010, 01:54

Saint Devote

30th April 2010, 01:58

It does not matter WHAT the idiot governments do - the reason why young women smoking had INCREASED over the past few years has everything to do with personal choice.

NB: buy RICHEMONT shares :-]

Koz

30th April 2010, 02:43

I do have this tendency to reach out and WHACK!! political correctness commissars upside the head!

Weak minded or easily led - as Luca calls them - people may respond to advertising. Too bad. This world is not meant to be adjusted to the level of the mawkish.

I love that photo of James Hunt sitting with a lovely women on his Mclaren sidepod. The Marlboro advertising is evident. His cap is back, he looks untidy and has a cigarette and a drink in his hand.

He would have HATED f1 today. But then so probably would have David Purley.

Come to think of it so does Kimi!

http://www.statussean.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/james_hunt_19761.jpg

Kimi is starting to look more and more like Hunt. I wonder if Kimi smokes... :p

Really? This commotion about smoking gets more kids to try it, smoker's image is probably worse these days than 30 years ago.
People still smoke...
If smoking so so bad, let's ban tobacco altogether, ah but taxes... Just more PC hypocrisy.

Rollo

30th April 2010, 04:38

It is claimed the red, white and black bar code on Ferrari cars and overalls is intended to remind viewers of Marlboro cigarettes branding.

There is a key word in this sentence: "remind". Being given a reminder is not the same as a case of the explicit colours being shown. If Ferrari had been using the red chevrom logos like Penske had, then there might be a case to be made:

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ryan-briscoe_021.jpg

From an asthetic point of view, I'd like to see Ferrari return to a tutto lo scarletti colour scheme. I think that even the white rear wing looks stupid.

harvick#1

30th April 2010, 04:43

Rollo, unfortunately, Penske Racing killed off the Marlboro livery this year :(

it was one of the last of the legendary liveries in racing.

gloomyDAY

30th April 2010, 05:34

http://www.statussean.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/james_hunt_19761.jpgPimp. :s mokin:

Dave B

30th April 2010, 09:31

Kimi is starting to look more and more like Hunt. .
I just read that out loud to someone and they agreed, before realising they'd mis-heard me... :p

Hawkmoon

30th April 2010, 10:51

The team's called Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro and these clowns are complaining about subliminal advertising on the cars? :confused:

SGWilko

30th April 2010, 10:54

The team's called Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro and these clowns are complaining about subliminal advertising on the cars? :confused:

That is a point well made. Technically, it is not an ad, is it? But there it is, big and bold.

Very clever.

Jag_Warrior

30th April 2010, 22:08

Why does someone not just turn up to Asda in an F2010 and have the thing scanned by a checkout girl.

It'll either be a pack of wine gums or 20 Marlboro......

:rotflmao:

Jag_Warrior

30th April 2010, 22:18

Oz politicians pandering to the soccer moms? Pathetic.

I really don't think Ferrari is going to run a plain red livery.
A bar-code is not going to adversely affect any Australians.

I don't have a problem with the Ferrari livery. In fact, it wouldn't bother me either, if tobacco sponsorship was allowed to return. It should be legal to advertise legal products. They sure as hell don't mind advertising feminine hygiene products and erectile dysfuntion pills while I'm trying to eat my dinner. And what would the Super Bowl be like without five hundred beer ads?!

But I tell ya what I am in favor of banning: soccer moms. Hockey moms too. I'd ban them and the stupid SUV's they haul their crumb snatching broods around in.

Sonic

30th April 2010, 22:35

I don't have a problem with the Ferrari livery. In fact, it wouldn't bother me either, if tobacco sponsorship was allowed to return. It should be legal to advertise legal products. They sure as hell don't mind advertising feminine hygiene products and erectile dysfuntion pills while I'm trying to eat my dinner. And what would the Super Bowl be like without five hundred beer ads?!

True. Fag ads on the cars never bothered me. As I think I said before elsewhere I didn't even realise Rothmans, Camel, Malboro etc were Cigs (perhaps I was just too young and sheltered) until I was perhaps 14/15 years old. It certainly didn't make me wanna smoke.

nigelred5

1st May 2010, 02:36

cigarettes sponsors are banned yet alcoholic sponsors are :rolleyes:

I never understood this as Alcohol kills more people, innocent and not than cigarettes.

I have seen all forms of tobacco brandings and never once have I ever wanted a cigarette, they are disgusting and dont understand how people are addicted to them, unless they like smelling like crap everyday

The simple fact that operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is illegal in virtually every industrialized country on earth yet there seems to be widespread acceptance with that advertising in motorsports just underscores the hypocracy. I have worn Marlboro, Rothmans, John Player, Camel, Player, Kool, hell, even Rizla branded team wear and I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. I used to take every carton of free Winstons they would give me at the track and I still never smoke a one. I could often pay for my entire weekend selling the cartons to people that did smoke. Sam when all the smokeless companies used to give out free sleeves of skoal and copenhagen. people that want to smoke are going to smoke, regardless of how much it costs or how little it is advertised. I watch people pay $8.00 a pack every morning.

gloomyDAY

1st May 2010, 02:51

Fag ads on the cars never bothered me..... :confused:

gloomyDAY

1st May 2010, 03:08

Oops! I see that fags means cigarettes in England.

Thanks Google.

Oh, fag ads on cars don't bother me either. They're usually cool and creative.

ArrowsFA1

1st May 2010, 10:32

The team's called Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro and these clowns are complaining about subliminal advertising on the cars? :confused:
Exactly :up: It's hardly a secret that Marlboro still sponsor the team and it's not as if the barcode has only just appeared either.

ioan

1st May 2010, 10:54

Exactly :up: It's hardly a secret that Marlboro still sponsor the team and it's not as if the barcode has only just appeared either.

But the authorities in question have always hired people who need decades to come up with anything at least half baked, so no surprises there.

Mysterious Rock

1st May 2010, 10:56

In fact its a real shame, I loved the days of the Buzzin Hornets and the Be on Edge, if people didnt realise it was B&H then whats the problem and you only knew it was Benson and Hedges because you had already known about it.

1st May 2010, 11:13

“The bar code looks like the bottom half of a packet of Marlboro cigarettes"

No it doesn't.

If it did look like the bottom half of a Marlboro packet it would say that "Smoking Causes Ageing of the Skin" or "Smoking when Pregnant Can Harm your Baby".

Just goes to show that the bloke hasn't seen a packet of cigarettes since 1992.

Sonic

1st May 2010, 13:18

Oops! I see that fags means cigarettes in England.

Thanks Google.

Oh, fag ads on cars don't bother me either. They're usually cool and creative.

Hehehehe! :D

Be a bit weird for the other meaning of the word to be plastered down the side of the car! LOL.

markabilly

1st May 2010, 17:30

Oops! I see that fags means cigarettes in England.

Thanks Google.

.
err...the reason they call them fags in england is cause where you put them when in use....no difference really...

but what i don't understand is everytime I see the bar code, i just want to :beer: and have no desire to :s mokin:

SGWilko

1st May 2010, 21:01

where you put them when in use....

Ash tray?

UltimateDanGTR

1st May 2010, 22:26

a barcode is a barcode. we all know what particular sponsor it represents, but ciggarette sponsorship has always been massive in F1, without them we wouldn't have seen the magnificent John Player Special livery ofcourse, or the classic rothmans williams livery and lets not forget the whole BAR team, which were essentially a tobacco company team, to become honda then brawn then mercedes. and if people see the barcode and suddenly decide that means they must have a fag instead of watching the race, that's their problem. Plus, cigarette companies are spending their profits on sponsorship, so they make less money. rejoice. I dont advocate smoking, I have never smoked and never will, but whilst it's around we may as well see it as an oppurtunity for F1 and other motorsport teams to gain sponsorship and thus funds.

and actually, that raises a question: Where would F1 be without tobacco sponsors?

ShiftingGears

2nd May 2010, 08:03

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/29042010/58/ferrari-spotlight-subliminal-tobacco-ads.html

I don't believe it!

Malbec

2nd May 2010, 14:56

Exactly :up: It's hardly a secret that Marlboro still sponsor the team and it's not as if the barcode has only just appeared either.

The barcode thing really is clever. Firstly the cars run at different races with Marlboro OR a barcode logo, then years later once cigarette advertising was completely banned the cars run only with barcodes. For people who follow the sport we know exactly who or what the barcode represents without the name or logo being present. BAR did exactly the same thing with their 'BARCODE' ad campaign that ran in 2004-5.

The thing is either cigarette advertising is banned or it is not. It is currently banned so why is Marlboro allowed to get away with it? Questioning whether cigarette advertising should be banned is an entirely different subject.

BTW the sponsorship works to attract new customers, if it didn't then Philip Morris wouldn't be able to justify the spend to its shareholders....

Saint Devote

2nd May 2010, 16:34

http://www.statussean.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/james_hunt_19761.jpg

Kimi is starting to look more and more like Hunt. I wonder if Kimi smokes... :p

Really? This commotion about smoking gets more kids to try it, smoker's image is probably worse these days than 30 years ago.
People still smoke...
If smoking so so bad, let's ban tobacco altogether, ah but taxes... Just more PC hypocrisy.

:D You get my vote for the kewlest post since I began to post here!!! That picture encapsulates the golden period of f1!

Making laws and regulations based on the view that people are feeble minded and a desire to increase government control over the lives of individuals is the pitiful and pathetic standard of today.

harvick#1

2nd May 2010, 16:41

"how about when you go anywhere you got no SMOKING SIGNS, is it anytime you see those you want to smoke more?"

:s mokin: this was an awesome post

so its ok for every building to advertise about cigs but not an F1 car

Saint Devote

2nd May 2010, 16:46

BTW the sponsorship works to attract new customers, if it didn't then Philip Morris wouldn't be able to justify the spend to its shareholders....

Yes it does attract new customers - but they are smokers.

Richemont brands have no presence in the US and is governed by the draconian European dictates. Yet they have always sold significant amounts of tobacco products in the US.

And they are open about their sales RISING in countries regardless of the level of advertising allowed.

Tobacco is a mimdset. Why has usage amongst young women below the ages of 25 constantly increased over the past decade? Its considered "kewl" and they know that many models and actresses smoke.

Changing peoples attitudes towards smoking is as impossible as trying stop them eating Mcdonalds morning, noon and night.

ioan

2nd May 2010, 17:59

To be honest everyone can advertise and smoke as much as they wish as long as they will only receive medical care for the money they paid for their health insurance. Given that this is impossible to implement as it would be considered discrimination, as an alternative 50% of a pack of cigs should go directly to health insurance founds, same goes for alcohol.
Other then the above aspects I really don't care if some want or do not want to smoke and the regulators are just losing time and money trying to stop the unstoppable defaults of the human nature.

Malbec

2nd May 2010, 19:03

Yes it does attract new customers - but they are smokers.

Only in mature markets like the US or Europe.

In areas like India or China where smoking among large population groups such as women is not common, advertising has been shown to increase smoking rates significantly.

It is on these developing countries that cigarette companies are focusing their attention which is partly why a company like BAT that had traditionally not bothered to use F1 were attracted to the sport. It is also in these countries that those companies have often funded the distribution of free toy cars to children with the liveries on display to promote the brand.

The way in which cigarette companies behave is without much honour, adoration of the sport should not blind you to the fact that this is an industry that we as fans should not be proud of associating ourselves.

ioan

2nd May 2010, 19:35

In areas like India or China where smoking among large population groups such as women is not common, advertising has been shown to increase smoking rates significantly.

How many Indian and Chinese women are watching F1? And how many of them will associate the bar code on Ferrari's livery with Marlboro?

Malbec

2nd May 2010, 19:42

How many Indian and Chinese women are watching F1? And how many of them will associate the bar code on Ferrari's livery with Marlboro?

WTF do you think F1 is so desperate to go to places like India and China? Its a massive new market for everyone including the tobacco companies. Ever been to those places? The tobacco companies are everywhere there.

As others have said even if they don't get the barcode branding they might wonder what Scuderia Ferrari MARLBORO means.

ioan

2nd May 2010, 22:35

WTF do you think F1 is so desperate to go to places like India and China? Its a massive new market for everyone including the tobacco companies. Ever been to those places? The tobacco companies are everywhere there.

As others have said even if they don't get the barcode branding they might wonder what Scuderia Ferrari MARLBORO means.

Why don't you answer my question instead of trying to duck it?

You cherry picked a market segment, the women in India and China to prove that more tobacco can be sold, and I asked how many of those watch F1 and know what the bar code on the Ferrari means, given that we are talking about the bar code on the Ferrari and not tobacco advertising in general.

And to answer your question, given that Ferrari are the only ones that have anything to do with a tobacco company I doubt that F1 wants to go to India or other 3rd world country in order to promote tobacco advertising.

Malbec

3rd May 2010, 00:22

Why don't you answer my question instead of trying to duck it?

You cherry picked a market segment, the women in India and China to prove that more tobacco can be sold, and I asked how many of those watch F1 and know what the bar code on the Ferrari means, given that we are talking about the bar code on the Ferrari and not tobacco advertising in general.

I did, apologies if you do not remember the period when F1 started targeting India and China. That was 6-7 years ago when the tobacco companies were still in F1 and one of them even owned its own team. They were of course not alone, every other sponsor wanted to go there as well.

The Indian GP of course hasn't worked out for whatever reason but don't mistake that for a lack of trying, or a lack of pressure on Bernie to go there.

And no, not many Indians or Chinese watched F1 back then but that was the point of going there wasn't it, to expand interest and viewership.

BTW just because the cars can't run with overt tobacco advertising doesn't stop the cigarette companies from using pictures of those cars in their advertising away from the circuit where such ads aren't banned just as other companies do, and thus we return to markets like China and India. So if you can't associate barcodes with Marlboro then the direct advertising in Beijing and Delhi that features a Ferrari car alongside 'Smoke Marlboro' might jog your memory.

And to answer your question, given that Ferrari are the only ones that have anything to do with a tobacco company I doubt that F1 wants to go to India or other 3rd world country in order to promote tobacco advertising.

Really? So you don't think Philip Morris (which clearly values F1 for marketing given how much it spends) doesn't apply pressure to see F1 go where it wants to expand? Just as the car makers wanted F1 to return to the US where they wanted to see more marketing return?

So tell me ioan, why are you so defensive about this dirty industry which was quite happy to bribe poorer governments to stop anti-tobacco measures and which for years refused to accept a link between cigarettes and cancer and suppressed the work of scientists and journalists who disagreed? Is that really a type of company you're proud of associating with? One that quite happily denies a link between its products and the deaths it causes because of money?

Rollo

3rd May 2010, 02:23

Does anyone know if pressure has been brought to bear on the Ducati Moto GP team? Arguably their livery is identically faulty as Ferrari's:

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/upload/266825/images/stoner.jpg

Rollo

3rd May 2010, 02:28

Is that really a type of company you're proud of associating with? One that quite happily denies a link between its products and the deaths it causes because of money?

http://www.nber.org/papers/w4891.pdf
the financial savings from premature mortality in terms of lower nursing home costs and retirement pensions exceed the higher medical care and life insurance costs generated.

"Yes, but cigarette taxes pay for a third of the cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntary lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors."
- Sir Humphrey Appleby - "The Smoke Screen", Yes Minister - :D

Ari

3rd May 2010, 08:41

I am stunned that this has only really been a problem or noticed now.

You can't tell me everyone didn't know this!? I always felt it was clever marketing.

Same barcode on the Ducati bikes as well!

markabilly

3rd May 2010, 15:01

http://www.nber.org/papers/w4891.pdf
the financial savings from premature mortality in terms of lower nursing home costs and retirement pensions exceed the higher medical care and life insurance costs generated.

"Yes, but cigarette taxes pay for a third of the cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntary lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors."
- Sir Humphrey Appleby - "The Smoke Screen", Yes Minister - :D

I say amen, and smoke em if you got them... :s mokin: ......and what would team Ferrari do without the extra dough rae me....

We need a national monument in Washington DC to honor thos brave people who gave it all for us to save money and to watch Ferrari

well now we know why BE wants to have races in China, Mal-asia, Vietnam, Russia and North Korea.... :s mokin:

Valve Bounce

3rd May 2010, 15:11

I reckon if you removed the bar code, that part of the car would more resemble a packet of Marlboros. Then of course, in Oz all cigarette packets have to be plain in future, so if a car is painted just plain, it would resemble a cigarette packet.

I did think the white stripes looked funny, but never associated it with a bar code - in Oz, bar codes are black.

ioan

3rd May 2010, 19:01

Really? So you don't think Philip Morris (which clearly values F1 for marketing given how much it spends) doesn't apply pressure to see F1 go where it wants to expand?

I doubt that 1 team's sponsor can apply enough pressure to shift the direction of F1.

They are going there because they need to increase the fan base so that the CVC and Bernie make more money. It is the only way to get more money directly from the circuit owners given that in Europe and North America this didn't work anymore and some even preferred to drop off the calender than pay Bernie's huge ransoms.

So when I look to the big picture I see many better reasons than just PM wanting to add a bit more advertising in China or India where they are already advertising anyway.

ioan

3rd May 2010, 19:10

So tell me ioan, why are you so defensive about this dirty industry which was quite happy to bribe poorer governments to stop anti-tobacco measures and which for years refused to accept a link between cigarettes and cancer and suppressed the work of scientists and journalists who disagreed? Is that really a type of company you're proud of associating with? One that quite happily denies a link between its products and the deaths it causes because of money?

I am not defensive of any kind of dirty anything, I am defending the freedom of people to chose what they want to do.
I am not smoking, I am not drinking alcohol either and I am not taking any kind of illegal drugs, but everyone is free to do what they want as long as their actions do not harm other people, IMO.

And where am I associating with any kind of company?
And to be honest no tobacco company denies the link between cigarettes and death of stupid smokers anymore.

What I am against is the lengths you go to try to spin things to suit your POV, up to the point of claiming that F1 wanted to go to China and India so that tobacco companies could advertise their stuff there, like if there aren't cheaper ways to it especially for the market segment represented by women who won't really follow F1 to the extent of associating the bar code on the Ferrari livery with Marlboro.

SGWilko

3rd May 2010, 21:39

like if there aren't cheaper ways to it .

I think that, for the amount of money it costs (and certainly in the heydey) to paint your wagon like a cancer stick packet, it is value for money for the companies.

ioan

3rd May 2010, 23:34

Its thought that Ferrari were in line to receive $1 billion between 2005 and 2011. The contract is up next year so we could very well see the barcode disappearing in the future. The fact is they pay big money to Ferrari and more than any telecommunications or soft drink company. Bernie no doubt gets a cut and I'm sure he'll be eager to secure its continuation post 2011. :)

PM do not pay 1 billion for 6 years to advertise their bar code on that Ferrari, they buy the whole livery for 200 millions a year and sell it to whomever wants to be on it. They might even be making a profit out of it and still keeping the bar code on the car for free.
Anyway they are smart because there is no Marlboro on the car, it's in the name of the team, and there is no sponsorship contract between them and Ferrari given that they buy the advert space and sell it to others.

Malbec

4th May 2010, 00:33

I doubt that 1 team's sponsor can apply enough pressure to shift the direction of F1.

They are going there because they need to increase the fan base so that the CVC and Bernie make more money. It is the only way to get more money directly from the circuit owners given that in Europe and North America this didn't work anymore and some even preferred to drop off the calender than pay Bernie's huge ransoms.

So when I look to the big picture I see many better reasons than just PM wanting to add a bit more advertising in China or India where they are already advertising anyway.

Ok ioan I don't see why I bother responding to you since you clearly don't read my posts properly. I've made it clear that the tobacco sponsors were only one of many types of sponsor that wanted to go to the new markets. If you think it was entirely because of CVC and Bernie wanting to make more money and that the sponsors really didn't care what markets F1 went to then that is up to you. I mean I guess all those car manufacturers criticising Bernie for losing the US GP must have all been joking right, as were all the sponsors welcoming the expansion to China.

Malbec

4th May 2010, 00:40

I am not defensive of any kind of dirty anything, I am defending the freedom of people to chose what they want to do.
I am not smoking, I am not drinking alcohol either and I am not taking any kind of illegal drugs, but everyone is free to do what they want as long as their actions do not harm other people, IMO.

Strawman.

Where have I questioned the freedom of people to choose? That isn't a topic I've touched on is it now? Irrelevant.

And to be honest no tobacco company denies the link between cigarettes and death of stupid smokers anymore.

Only because they've been forced to by multiple lawsuits, not of their own volition.

What I am against is the lengths you go to try to spin things to suit your POV, up to the point of claiming that F1 wanted to go to China and India so that tobacco companies could advertise their stuff there, like if there aren't cheaper ways to it especially for the market segment represented by women who won't really follow F1 to the extent of associating the bar code on the Ferrari livery with Marlboro.

OK I used women as one example. I also used the young as another which you chose to ignore.

Marketing is a complex area and I didn't make my initial posts expansive enough to cater for your posting style. Marketing is about establishing brand values, in Marlboro's case that of adventure and excitement. By attaching their brand to F1 and especially that of Ferrari they further their aims in establishing those values in the mind of the consumer.

As for you, you continually ignore the fact that Philip Morris would clearly not be spending that money if it didn't get them something. Why do you think they sponsor Ferrari FFS?

ioan

4th May 2010, 00:47

Ok ioan I don't see why I bother responding to you since you clearly don't read my posts properly. I've made it clear that the tobacco sponsors were only one of many types of sponsor that wanted to go to the new markets. If you think it was entirely because of CVC and Bernie wanting to make more money and that the sponsors really didn't care what markets F1 went to then that is up to you. I mean I guess all those car manufacturers criticising Bernie for losing the US GP must have all been joking right, as were all the sponsors welcoming the expansion to China.

Who said the sponsors didn't care?
Now ''I don't see why I bother responding to you since you clearly don't read my posts properly.'' :D

The car manufacturers in case are not sponsors of the teams they are/were the teams themselves and thus they had a an interest and a say in the new markets.

My next question however is about the difference there is between having the GP on TV and in the media and having it on the track near the population. Do you believe that those 50 to 100 thousands people who pay to watch the race on the track make a difference when compared to the many millions watching on TV?
Does it matter to the teams that much if they race in Magny Cours or Shanghai when they attract about the same number of spectators and the ones in France are more likely to buy a BMW or Mercedes than the Chinese soldiers that fill the rows in Shanghai.

IMO the exposure on TV and in the mass media generally is much higher than what teams get in a country based on the race attendance and thus when they draw the line they don't care that much about the location, especially if it is in a country where people need to work 20 years to afford buying a new car.

Malbec

4th May 2010, 01:44

ioan if you are genuinely interested in why and how tobacco companies use F1 to reach third world markets I suggest you read the following. BTW it would be a fallacy to suggest that BAT and Philip Morris behave differently. You will have to register to read the links but there should be no problems for you.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7457/104

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/4/262.long

Malbec

4th May 2010, 01:49

The car manufacturers in case are not sponsors of the teams they are/were the teams themselves and thus they had a an interest and a say in the new markets.

So sponsors that put in up to $100 million into a team stay meek and silent about where the sport goes? Right. Sure.

Does it matter to the teams that much if they race in Magny Cours or Shanghai when they attract about the same number of spectators and the ones in France are more likely to buy a BMW or Mercedes than the Chinese soldiers that fill the rows in Shanghai.

You do know that BMW and Mercedes sell many times more cars in China than they do in France right? Its already Audi's second biggest market and Mercedes' third.

IMO the exposure on TV and in the mass media generally is much higher than what teams get in a country based on the race attendance and thus when they draw the line they don't care that much about the location, especially if it is in a country where people need to work 20 years to afford buying a new car.

Thats right ioan, the Chinese can only see the race if they turn up to the track right? They don't televise the races do they? They don't discuss the arrival of the F1 circus in town on the news do they?

Oh and they have to work 20 years to afford buying a new car? Is that why China is the biggest car market in the world already?

What century are you in?

ArrowsFA1

4th May 2010, 13:37

Luca's now had his say:

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo says suggestions that his team's livery is using subliminal Marlboro advertising are "verging on the ridiculous".
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83310

The only question about this for me is if the bar code has no relation to Marlboro whatsoever then what is it there for? Personally I think the car would look much better without it and it's hard to imagine any team filling valuable advertising space with something that represents nothing :crazy:

Dave B

4th May 2010, 14:08

Luca's now had his say:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83310

The only question about this for me is if the bar code has no relation to Marlboro whatsoever then what is it there for? Personally I think the car would look much better without it and it's hard to imagine any team filling valuable advertising space with something that represents nothing :crazy:
My take:

a) We all know the barcode represents Marlboro, stop treating us like idiots.
b) Who cares anyway? If people are dumb enough to smoke, it won't be because they saw a logo on a racing car.

ioan

4th May 2010, 20:21

You do know that BMW and Mercedes sell many times more cars in China than they do in France right? Its already Audi's second biggest market and Mercedes' third.

And how many of those Chinese do so because they were at the Shanghai F1 GP?
And why is Audi relevant to F1?

Mixing apples and bananas is a desperate move.

ioan

4th May 2010, 20:23

My take:

a) We all know the barcode represents Marlboro, stop treating us like idiots.

He knows we know but if he agrees then he has to pull it from the cars, so he is logically denying it.
It has nothing to do with treating anyone like idiots. It's covering up from a legal POV.

b) Who cares anyway? If people are dumb enough to smoke, it won't be because they saw a logo on a racing car.

Exactly.

ioan

4th May 2010, 20:34

It seems Santander also pay around €40m per season to Ferrari in sponsorship. :)

Well done Ferrari. :D

SGWilko

4th May 2010, 21:18

The only question about this for me is if the bar code has no relation to Marlboro whatsoever then what is it there for?

Sound like; Beatles Drummer.

ioan

4th May 2010, 22:30

Indeed, but Marlboro still have a contract with Ferrari. The fact they are paying so much and not having their brand clearly on the car is also worthy of a hats off to Ferrari. I'd like to see Luca try and explain that one.. :D

You obviously didn't understand the agreement between Ferrari and PM.
The 200 million $/ year isn't for the right of getting their name/bar code on the car. They buy the whole advertising surface on the Ferrari and sell it to other companies that want to have brand exposure on the red cars. For all we know after they draw the line PM might have their bar codes on the Ferrari for free function of how much money they recoup from selling the available advertising surface.

Koz

5th May 2010, 04:33

Seeing marlboro, a bar code or anything wouldn't get someone into smoking. However, I did switch to Marlboro because of Peugeot in the WRC.

Would I buy something to support F1/WRC/whatever? Sure.
Would I buy it if I didn't need it, hell no.

call_me_andrew

5th May 2010, 04:56

If you scan the barcode it does reveal that Marlboro Reds still have that classic, bold flavor.

wmcot

5th May 2010, 08:46

I don't understand the hypocrisy in that as well. McLaren can run around with a Johnny Walker label prominently displayed anywhere, but Ferrari can't have a bar-code on the rear wing.

I think cigs kill more people over time, but alcohol is a very destructive. Ask any doctor in the emergency room what destroys the most families. I bet they'll say alcohol. Drunk driving, domestic violence, alcohol poisoning, and the list is endless. At least cancer takes time to kill, alcohol can do it in a whim.

Especially bad idea to mix alcohol and motor vehicles!!!

wmcot

5th May 2010, 08:49

My take:

a) We all know the barcode represents Marlboro, stop treating us like idiots.
b) Who cares anyway? If people are dumb enough to smoke, it won't be because they saw a logo on a racing car.

Come on - we all know nobody would know cigarettes exist if it wasn't for F1! ;)

Mysterious Rock

5th May 2010, 12:09

Come on - we all know nobody would know cigarettes exist if it wasn't for F1! ;)

Lol, I just look at the Brand on the car and assosiated it with someone in the family, B+H my Gran, Marlboro, my American Aunt and so on........ Never once made me want to smoke, but I would wear it in team merchandise

V12

6th May 2010, 14:15

I've just kind of skimmed through the thread so sorry if I'm repeating someone here, but I only have three things to say really:

1) It is hypocritical for it to be illegal to advertise a legal product. Either allow advertising or ban fags (yeah right, governments wouldn't want to lose the tax kickback would they?)

2) It's generally accepted that advertising did NOT make people want to take up smoking, however it DID influence what brands F1 fans may choose. I am speaking from personal experience too here.

3) This whole barcode controversy has come up because of somebody in a pointless paid position has too much time on their hands and needs to do be seen to be doing something to justify their pointless salary paid to them by the nanny state(s). Just get rid of them and save taxpayer's money. Please.

christophulus

6th May 2010, 18:09

Hmm, Ferrari have removed the barcode from their cars for the Spanish GP:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83346

inimitablestoo

6th May 2010, 18:17

If they want to be really cheeky they could replace the barcode with a picture of a doctor counting a wad of banknotes...

V12

6th May 2010, 18:30

If they want to be really cheeky they could replace the barcode with a picture of a doctor counting a wad of banknotes...

:laugh:

UltimateDanGTR

6th May 2010, 19:31

sensible decision by ferrari i feel.

would have been nice if they had been cheeky though, and put some nice imaginative writing on the side, something like 'insert barcode here', 'enticing, we know' or something better than hat i have suggested there, actually.

SGWilko

6th May 2010, 20:38

So, if it was not fag ash advertising, why remove it?

Mysterious Rock

6th May 2010, 21:26

Its funny really, if anything they are getting more publicity now from it with everyone talking about it and if anything the new livery looks like the bottom of a fag packet, they are just pushing the boundries, and fair play to them, im surprised they just dont put the team name on the car on the back, with the Marlboro on it.

ioan

6th May 2010, 22:02

So, if it was not fag ash advertising, why remove it?

Because it's pointless to try to argue with some idiots who now will probably say that Ferrari shouldn't be red because it's a Marlboro color.

Dave B

6th May 2010, 22:19

"We've done nothing wrong, but just in case...." :p

UltimateDanGTR

6th May 2010, 22:21

Because it's pointless to try to argue with some idiots who now will probably say that Ferrari shouldn't be red because it's a Marlboro color.

:up:
for once i will agree with you.

CNR

7th May 2010, 01:04

http://i41.tinypic.com/9hqp1l.jpg

Motion blur ?

Malbec

7th May 2010, 05:22

Mixing apples and bananas is a desperate move.

As is a failure to address every other point I made.

I used Audi as an example because having been to China I know that BMW is weirdly underrepresented there. My point still stands, China is still one of the biggest markets for the German premium (and non-premium) brands.

harvick#1

7th May 2010, 05:29

Because it's pointless to try to argue with some idiots who now will probably say that Ferrari shouldn't be red because it's a Marlboro color.

knowing the governments, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh they are gonna hear this and think its true.

so now is there anynews that Ducati are gonna get dropped as well

SGWilko

7th May 2010, 12:31

Because it's pointless to try to argue with some idiots who now will probably say that Ferrari shouldn't be red because it's a Marlboro color.

That's fine - I understand that. The red thing, mmmm, not sure, but didn't Ferrari change from traditional scarlet to a more 'reddy red' in deference to Marlboro at one point many moons ago?

But what was the barcode for originally? It HAD to reperesent something, right....?

That was the common denomenator linking Ferrari and Ducati - they both had that design.

Why, what for?

V12

7th May 2010, 12:46

It was 1997, when Marlboro title sponsorship moved from McLaren to Ferrari (even if Ferrari had some sort of Marlboro backing for ages before that!), that they went for a more pure shade of Marlboro red instead of the darker red that Ferrari had used before then.

1996 Ferrari: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Ferrari_F310_1996_Schumacher.jpg

1997 Ferrari: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/41/101557975_e6227774e6.jpg

Mia 01

7th May 2010, 13:57

Forget this, it´s a non issue.

jens

7th May 2010, 19:36

Hah, Ferrari has changed one subliminal livery with another one. That rectangle on the shark fin can be easily seen as part of Marlboro's livery as well. :p : Funny that they didn't do anything, when we were seeing texts like Be On Edge or Look Alike. That was just too obvious!

P.S. People like to compare Hunt and Räikkönen a lot, but I don't see much point in that. Actually they are very different - one was outspoken, other is not. Both like to party - so what? Irvine likes too.

harvick#1

7th May 2010, 19:43

haha the rectangle is classic another zing to a absolute crap government regulation that your not allowed to sponsor a tobacco product but your allowed to advertise Alcohol which is just as bad in deaths and whats worse is that Drunks take lives of innocents everyday when they crash

ioan

7th May 2010, 19:54