Jump to content


Photo

Philip Morris and Ferrari sponsorship (Merged)


  • Please log in to reply
1186 replies to this topic

#1 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,699 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 18 January 2010 - 16:18

The whisper at the Wrooom skiing event in Madonna di Campiglio is that Philip Morris will renew its sponsorship of the Ferrari team when the current deal runs out at the end of 2011. It had been thought that the title sponsorship would pass to Santander, but it seems that Philip Morris decided against that and has managed to integrate the Spnaish bank into the portfolio without giving up the title sponsorship.


http://joesaward.wor...hip-of-ferrari/

They clearly get a lot of exposure for Marlboro being in the name and the brand being "recognisable" from the bar code.
How does this sit with F1 having turned its back on tobacco money?



Advertisement

#2 TheF1PERSON

TheF1PERSON
  • Member

  • 552 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 January 2010 - 16:32

Well it's always been one rule for Ferrari and another for everyone else...

#3 Muzzinho

Muzzinho
  • Member

  • 385 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 January 2010 - 16:33

http://joesaward.wor...hip-of-ferrari/

They clearly get a lot of exposure for Marlboro being in the name and the brand being "recognisable" from the bar code.
How does this sit with F1 having turned its back on tobacco money?


F1 should have never turned its back on Tobacco in the first place.

If its legal, you should be allowed to advertise it.

#4 Zdeus

Zdeus
  • Member

  • 309 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 January 2010 - 16:39

I don't think one can stop a tobacco company from providing money to a F1 team. Its only a problem with tobacco advertising. It isn't illegal (in the world of advertising and marketing) even if a pattern or a color combination is used to vaguely imply brand promotion - so long as the brand does not appear on the car.

I think the color red and the bar-code gives you a clear illusion of a marlboro pack of smoke - so its awesome branding. Similar to the Wrigley's advertisement.

Wrigley's motto is - double your pleasure , double your fun. Chris Brown's hit single (Forever - )has the exact same words. Nothing comes close to an advertiser's dream than such a combination

Ferrari red with stripes is a ciggeratte pack on wheels without having to say Marlboro.

So Phillip Morris is in a sweet position to exploit it - and anyways subtle advertising is shown to be more effective and attention grabbing than in your face kinda branding (The vodafone Ferrari where every possible inch of real-estate on the car was stamped with circles)

Edited by Ravindra Nagpurkar, 18 January 2010 - 16:42.


#5 WonderboyF1

WonderboyF1
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 January 2010 - 16:46

Good news IMO We all have to remember Ferrari and Phillip Morris, could technically still run Marlboro branding on their car in Monaco and China (Not sure about that one anymore right enough) They came to a mutual decision not to run the full livery anymore in the countries that allowed them to, They wernt told by the FIA, to ditch the branding they just did it on there on part. Sure its only two out of the 18 races, but Monaco is one of the most popular races on the calendar. Or they could start displaying the barcode on the actual cigarette boxes, now theres an idea, i do believe they done a limited edition, box with a red F1 car on it, wonder what team that could have been :drunk: But rememeber kids, the bottom line is, smokers are jokers, no matter whether you see it advertised on a sexy red F1 car or not. :smoking:

#6 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 18 January 2010 - 16:50

Well it's advertising cigarettes. If you buy the argument that cigarette advertising just persuades people to switch brand rather than to smoke, then OK.

I don't, personally. I think the reasons F1 in general 'stopped smoking' are sound and ought to apply to Ferrari.

#7 Zdeus

Zdeus
  • Member

  • 309 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 January 2010 - 16:53

Well it's advertising cigarettes. If you buy the argument that cigarette advertising just persuades people to switch brand rather than to smoke, then OK.

I don't, personally. I think the reasons F1 in general 'stopped smoking' are sound and ought to apply to Ferrari.


And on what basis will you prove that its advertising Marlboro Cigarettes ?

#8 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 18 January 2010 - 16:55

And on what basis will you prove that its advertising Marlboro Cigarettes ?


Follow The Money :)

#9 Vids21

Vids21
  • Member

  • 84 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:01

Good to see some Loyal sponsors like them. Not that they have much chose, F1 is one of the very few sports they can still can get some exposure.

#10 Zdeus

Zdeus
  • Member

  • 309 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:02

Follow The Money :)


What does that mean ? Follow the money to Phillip Morris - is that what you implied or was that a personal statement ?

Anyways -its not illegal.

In some countries Alcohol advertising on TV is banned - Alcohol companies still advertise - Bacardi is a case in point.

Unless you believe this is again FERRARI favoritism - then this argument is going down an illogical path.

#11 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,273 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:03

I'm amazed that the barcode livery gives them any exposure whatsoever. It can't be that long until the majority of recent additions to fandom won't have a clue about its significance.

Surely all those who know about the Marlboro link have already chosen a brand or don't smoke at all?

#12 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:04

http://joesaward.wor...hip-of-ferrari/

They clearly get a lot of exposure for Marlboro being in the name and the brand being "recognisable" from the bar code.
How does this sit with F1 having turned its back on tobacco money?

Read that article too today, I expected the Marlboro - Ferrari link to end but obviously title sponsorship, the barcodes and Marlboro bringing their VIPs to the races, still brings enough exposure and value for money to continue.

Good news :up:

#13 Lazy Prodigy

Lazy Prodigy
  • Member

  • 2,458 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:06

Good for both parties. Now if only we could buy apparel with the bar code on it atleast....
It was strange last year to see Kimi posters with Marlboro on them but have the bar code on the car.

#14 Zdeus

Zdeus
  • Member

  • 309 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:08

I'm amazed that the barcode livery gives them any exposure whatsoever. It can't be that long until the majority of recent additions to fandom won't have a clue about its significance.

Surely all those who know about the Marlboro link have already chosen a brand or don't smoke at all?


If you are a Coke guy and you happen to see a combination of red, blue waves (in a certain pattern as it appears on a Pepsi Can) on a car won't you associate that with Pepsi ? Similarly someone who smokes will identify that combination is the argument. Given how easy it has gotten to track effectiveness of advertising campaigns , I'm assuming Phillip Morris has done it's ROI research and finds it profitable.


#15 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,310 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:13

The thing is, the marlboro marketing is very effective among smokers. It's dubious its effect on non-smokers. The legislation was brought in world-wide to stop people taking up smoking. So I'm not sure the moral or legal argument against Phillip Morris continuing on with its steal marketing.

#16 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:17

What does that mean ? Follow the money to Phillip Morris - is that what you implied or was that a personal statement ?

Anyways -its not illegal.

In some countries Alcohol advertising on TV is banned - Alcohol companies still advertise - Bacardi is a case in point.

Unless you believe this is again FERRARI favoritism - then this argument is going down an illogical path.


It would be quite easy to demonstrate that it's tobacco advertising, if anyone wanted to.

Meanwhile I simply think it's wrong to do it. The barcode is just a loophole after all.

#17 rmac923

rmac923
  • Member

  • 450 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:17

Good news IMO We all have to remember Ferrari and Phillip Morris, could technically still run Marlboro branding on their car in Monaco and China (Not sure about that one anymore right enough) They came to a mutual decision not to run the full livery anymore in the countries that allowed them to, They wernt told by the FIA, to ditch the branding they just did it on there on part. Sure its only two out of the 18 races, but Monaco is one of the most popular races on the calendar. Or they could start displaying the barcode on the actual cigarette boxes, now theres an idea, i do believe they done a limited edition, box with a red F1 car on it, wonder what team that could have been :drunk: But rememeber kids, the bottom line is, smokers are jokers, no matter whether you see it advertised on a sexy red F1 car or not. :smoking:


I thought they chose not to run Marlboro logos because Tobacco sponsorship was to be fully banned in/after 2011. As this was supposed to ease the blow.

Anyway, I think Tobacco sponsorship is still allowed in Bahrain,China,Monaco and Abu Dhabi. I don't know for sure about Singapore and Korea.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

#18 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:25

F1 should have never turned its back on Tobacco in the first place.

If its legal, you should be allowed to advertise it.


I agree actually.

The only reason cigs are still legal is because they bring in so much money in taxes.

The cars looked great with cigarette advertising, the liveries of Gitanes, Mild Seven, Camel, Marlboro, Lucky Strike etc all looked great.

And I've watched F1 since I was a little lad through to adulthood and have never chugged on a cigarette.

#19 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:26

Anyway, I think Tobacco sponsorship is still allowed in Bahrain,China,Monaco and Abu Dhabi. I don't know for sure about Singapore and Korea.


That's true, but F1 cars don't show tobacco at any race because of an EU directive making broadcasters culpable if they beam any tobacco branding into the EU.

Advertisement

#20 jeze

jeze
  • Member

  • 2,973 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:46

Good news IMO We all have to remember Ferrari and Phillip Morris, could technically still run Marlboro branding on their car in Monaco and China (Not sure about that one anymore right enough) They came to a mutual decision not to run the full livery anymore in the countries that allowed them to, They wernt told by the FIA, to ditch the branding they just did it on there on part. Sure its only two out of the 18 races, but Monaco is one of the most popular races on the calendar. Or they could start displaying the barcode on the actual cigarette boxes, now theres an idea, i do believe they done a limited edition, box with a red F1 car on it, wonder what team that could have been :drunk: But rememeber kids, the bottom line is, smokers are jokers, no matter whether you see it advertised on a sexy red F1 car or not. :smoking:


Thery could in Bahrain and Abu Dhabi as well without problems :smoking:

#21 katmen

katmen
  • Member

  • 597 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:49

I agree actually.

The only reason cigs are still legal is because they bring in so much money in taxes.

The cars looked great with cigarette advertising, the liveries of Gitanes, Mild Seven, Camel, Marlboro, Lucky Strike etc all looked great.

And I've watched F1 since I was a little lad through to adulthood and have never chugged on a cigarette.

AND your "positive" thinking about smoking ends when your very close relative dies because of forced passive smoking

#22 WonderboyF1

WonderboyF1
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:51

I wish they would then! Haha Bahrain test 2008, was the last time they ran the full livery.

#23 panzani

panzani
  • Member

  • 18,729 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 18 January 2010 - 17:53

They clearly get a lot of exposure for Marlboro being in the name and the brand being "recognisable" from the bar code.
How does this sit with F1 having turned its back on tobacco money?

F1 never did that. Their run for Asian tracks actually was the very opposite at the start. Nor any other sport, btw. EU and many other countries forbid adverts and exposure of tobacco brands. Ferrari, like many other companies/teams/whatever, just found a way to keep the sponsorship being worth for Marlboro.

#24 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 18:02

AND your "positive" thinking about smoking ends when your very close relative dies because of forced passive smoking


Sure, but back to the original point, we know cigarettes are deadly. Ban them. But governments won't because of the tax they gain from them.

#25 katmen

katmen
  • Member

  • 597 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 18 January 2010 - 18:08

Sure, but back to the original point, we know cigarettes are deadly. Ban them. But governments won't because of the tax they gain from them.

yes and that is tragic
if I have a power I would have ferrari with no ad branding pure ferrari red is best without that ugly barcodes

Edited by katmen, 18 January 2010 - 18:08.


#26 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 18:09

yes and that is tragic
if I have a power I would have ferrari with no ad branding pure ferrari red is best without that ugly barcodes


Cigarette manufacturers don't see a future in European and American markets anymore.

They all focus their spend on emerging economies, especially China.

#27 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 7,078 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 18:13

I think the barcode thing is pretty clever. I mean how on earth can somebody see that and deduce "Marlboro" without knowing the previous logos on the car? I'd be surprised if there were sales benefits still coming from their sponsorship. Strictly it's not advertising, it's association.

#28 jeze

jeze
  • Member

  • 2,973 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 18:17

AND your "positive" thinking about smoking ends when your very close relative dies because of forced passive smoking


I don't believe in passive smoking, I just make sure I stay away. Besides, girls look cooler when they :smoking:

Besides, I think the barcode solution is the best possible for both Ferrari and Philip Morris at the moment, and that I really hope they stay on. PM/Marlboro has been a tremendous supporter of motor racing so long and is part of our heritage, and we should be happy about the fact that tobacco companies built the sport to the commercial levels it has today, where other international companies can take over as main sponsors.

#29 FlatOverCrest

FlatOverCrest
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 18:55

AND your "positive" thinking about smoking ends when your very close relative dies because of forced passive smoking


While I am not a fan of smoking and actually love the fact I can go out to a bar, restaurant or dinner and not smell like a bonfire..... But I also believe in 'choice'....

Unfortunately now it seems, people cannot be held accountable for choice anymore, no one forces anyone to smoke... there is a tax to try and deter smokers, unfortunately there is no clarity in what the taxes are used for and I would like to see a lot more clarity from governments that showed clearly the revenue generated from cig and alchohol taxation goes purely to the NHS... but it doesnt.....

It more often than not, gets used to pay bent MP's false and crooked expense claims...

Ultimately... people should be allowed choice and advertising is part of that.... I am like Pot...despite watching ciggy sponsorship for MANY years...I have not become a smoker... unfortunately there are some who are more easily swayed by advertising..... and it seems by demographic, those more likely to smoke are from a lower class level. If said people are so easily pursuaded to buy cigarettes, then maybe if they were too expensive to buy, it counteracts the 'urge' to buy?...

Not ideal.... but the gradual, continuos urge by Eurocrat Prats in the European Parliament to gradually take away anyones choice or decision making capability is going to come back and bite them in the backside one day....when eventually the common man rises up and says 'enough....I am sick of you telling me what to do...'
This has caused revolutions in the past....and these muppets dont see the seeds of it now..... In 1936 a nation became so sick and tired of not being listened to, that it chose to support a complete lunatic that promised a different way... unfortunately...history WILL repeat itself, if the liberal left keeps pushing and pushing its dogma onto people that do not have the same views...

They could start by heavily controlling the output of the European Court of Human Rights, which is frankly an abomination to any institution and is constantly used to support the complaints of a minority (complainant) versus the democratically elected majority.... where are the majorities 'RIGHTS' as I very rarely see them being fought for by said court....

Therefore I agree, that unless a substance is illegal...there can and should be not restriction on the marketing activities of said companies...the warnings are very clear on the packet.... if someone is stupid enough to ignore that.... I unfortunately have very little sympathy for them... and even less to them getting medical treatment for a condition caused by their inability to say 'no'...

#30 paulogman

paulogman
  • Member

  • 1,979 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 18 January 2010 - 19:09

good, let the tifosi poison themselves. smoking is disgusting and unhealthy and the fools who smoke til they get sick are a huge drag on the medical system. must make ferrari feel so good. we are associated with sickness and death... lol

#31 Zdeus

Zdeus
  • Member

  • 309 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 January 2010 - 19:15

good, let the tifosi poison themselves. smoking is disgusting and unhealthy and the fools who smoke til they get sick are a huge drag on the medical system. must make ferrari feel so good. we are associated with sickness and death... lol


Maybe they can re-brand their association with Phillip Morris - "Together - in sickness and death" ;) or "Till smoking does us apart"

Edited by Ravindra Nagpurkar, 18 January 2010 - 19:16.


#32 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,552 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 18 January 2010 - 19:25

I agree actually.

The only reason cigs are still legal is because they bring in so much money in taxes.

The cars looked great with cigarette advertising, the liveries of Gitanes, Mild Seven, Camel, Marlboro, Lucky Strike etc all looked great.

And I've watched F1 since I was a little lad through to adulthood and have never chugged on a cigarette.


Obviously they didn't all pay up enough to make their teams a winner though! BAR could have done with double the budget for instance to assist their efforts at crushing domination.

A "cheap" sponsor who sells a highly addictive and highly profitable product? Tacky!  ;)

#33 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 19:30

Cigarette manufacturers don't see a future in European and American markets anymore.

They all focus their spend on emerging economies, especially China.

Yes. They need to find new customers. In Europe and USA more smokers are dying than being born and the smoke ban is actually quite effective. I like it. I still smoke, but less. My kids can come to restaurants and caf├ęs without being forced to smoke. There is a lot of people claiming that advertising does not make people start smoking, but of course they are wrong. Advertising, product placement (movies, album covers) and image making (Marlboro man) works very well and the proof of that is the amount of money that the tobacco companies have been using for marketing the last 100 years.

Anyone seen any ads in for instance China related to F1? Do they have the Marlboro package next to the Ferrari, next to the picture of Schumi/Kimi/Massa/Alonso?
If they do, the barcode is still valid as product recognition over there although it might not be so obvious for our teenagers in Europe.

#34 ZenSpeed

ZenSpeed
  • Member

  • 1,192 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 19:38

The thing is, the marlboro marketing is very effective among smokers. It's dubious its effect on non-smokers. The legislation was brought in world-wide to stop people taking up smoking. So I'm not sure the moral or legal argument against Phillip Morris continuing on with its steal marketing.

Absolutely right, reinforces the brand among those who are familiar with it and already support it. How can a series of barcodes induce someone to smoking is beyond me. I don't see any negative impact on non smokers from this deal

#35 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 20:05

Absolutely right, reinforces the brand among those who are familiar with it and already support it. How can a series of barcodes induce someone to smoking is beyond me. I don't see any negative impact on non smokers from this deal

What should be easy to understand is this: Philip Morris and the rest in the tobacco industry is advertising, sponsoring events, sponsoring media production, F1 and other things for one reason only: To sell more cigarettes and tobacco.
They are not charity organizations. Their tactics works and it works well. EU, US and some other countries have created rules and laws to make it more difficult for the tobacco industry to recruit new customers. They created those laws and rules because the tobacco industry was so successful in their recruiting.

Arguments like "I don't smoke, therefore the advertising does not work" is pretty naive.

#36 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,706 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 20:19

I'm not surprised that Philip Morris wish to keep the association with F1 and Ferrari, but it is surprising that Ferrari seem unable to attract a replacement.

#37 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 20:21

I'm not surprised that Philip Morris wish to keep the association with F1 and Ferrari, but it is surprising that Ferrari seem unable to attract a replacement.


On the contrary, Philip Morris own all the advertising space on the Ferrari then on-sell it at a profit.

Pretty smart idea.

#38 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,706 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 20:23

On the contrary, Philip Morris own all the advertising space on the Ferrari then on-sell it at a profit.

Pretty smart idea.


Indeed, but that is coming to an end. Therefore I'm still surprised that Ferrari haven't found a replacement. :D

#39 TheF1PERSON

TheF1PERSON
  • Member

  • 552 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 January 2010 - 20:29

I agree actually.

The only reason cigs are still legal is because they bring in so much money in taxes.

The cars looked great with cigarette advertising, the liveries of Gitanes, Mild Seven, Camel, Marlboro, Lucky Strike etc all looked great.

And I've watched F1 since I was a little lad through to adulthood and have never chugged on a cigarette.


Whatever happened to the Camel brand? They seemed to be sponsoring every team in late 80's/early 90's, but I never see any Camel cigs on the shelves and there was no Camel sponsorship after 1993.

Advertisement

#40 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 20:35

Indeed, but that is coming to an end. Therefore I'm still surprised that Ferrari haven't found a replacement. :D


Santander?

#41 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 20:43

On the contrary, Philip Morris own all the advertising space on the Ferrari then on-sell it at a profit.

Pretty smart idea.

You think? Is part of the Santander money going to Philip Morris? Sounds strange that Ferrari could not sell that space themselves and keep the extra money?

#42 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 21:01

You think? Is part of the Santander money going to Philip Morris? Sounds strange that Ferrari could not sell that space themselves and keep the extra money?


My understanding is that Philip Morris bought all the space several years ago then onsell it.

I'm not expert though, there are Ferrari nuts around here who no doubt know the deal better.

#43 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,706 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 21:04

My understanding is that Philip Morris bought all the space several years ago then onsell it.

I'm not expert though, there are Ferrari nuts around here who no doubt know the deal better.


I think the deal was for $200m per year....

#44 carbonfibre

carbonfibre
  • Member

  • 6,295 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 18 January 2010 - 21:36

My understanding is that Philip Morris bought all the space several years ago then onsell it.

I'm not expert though, there are Ferrari nuts around here who no doubt know the deal better.

Yep i also understand that Philip Morris buys all the advertising space from Ferrari for a certain amount of money per year (which i assume is quite big) and they can "sell" it to other sponsors. So Ferrari get's a guaranteed income very year and it's up to philip morris to get the sponsors.

#45 jey16

jey16
  • Member

  • 253 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 22:18

I'm not surprised that Philip Morris wish to keep the association with F1 and Ferrari, but it is surprising that Ferrari seem unable to attract a replacement.


how many companies are willing to spend the kind of cash PMI do? It's a very lucrative contract and I doubt Ferrari would be able to get as much money from a new title sponsor in this economic environment

#46 mclarensmps

mclarensmps
  • Member

  • 3,897 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 18 January 2010 - 22:32

I agree with you chaps who say F1 should not have turned its back on Tobacco advertising.

If the things are legal to sell, they should be legal to advertise. Simple as that.

This whole "covered cigarette cabinet" hypocrisy up here in Canada is all so farcical.



I think it's good on Ferrari to continue their relationship with PM, if nothing else, then for the sake of Nostalgia.

#47 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Paddock Club Host

  • 4,554 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 23:10

And on what basis will you prove that its advertising Marlboro Cigarettes ?



If you are a Coke guy and you happen to see a combination of red, blue waves (in a certain pattern as it appears on a Pepsi Can) on a car won't you associate that with Pepsi ? Similarly someone who smokes will identify that combination is the argument. Given how easy it has gotten to track effectiveness of advertising campaigns , I'm assuming Phillip Morris has done it's ROI research and finds it profitable.


I think that's both sides put by one poster. Very even-handed.

#48 JarnoA

JarnoA
  • Member

  • 752 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 23:27

I agree with you chaps who say F1 should not have turned its back on Tobacco advertising.

If the things are legal to sell, they should be legal to advertise. Simple as that.

This whole "covered cigarette cabinet" hypocrisy up here in Canada is all so farcical.



I think it's good on Ferrari to continue their relationship with PM, if nothing else, then for the sake of Nostalgia.


Indeed. The most hipocritical law in the UK is that powdered baby milk vendors aren't allowed to advertise their goods up till 6 months +. Until recently, the rule was no advertising at all!!

The breast feeding mafia jumped on the change to allow follow on milk advertising, but the question remains, why???

I have 3 boys, all of which were fed with formula milk, simply because my wife is unable to breastfeed. She was told by doctors that due to the medication that she takes, she is not allowed to breastfeed.

Why should she be stigmatised by the nutcase lobbyists? The same goes for smoking. It is legal to smoke, and I do smoke. Why is it ok for Johnny Walker to advertise in F1, (a really bad match IMHO), when Marlboro, or even SMA Gold aren't allowed to advertise? Obviously, alcohol is much better for you than formula milk!!!



#49 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Paddock Club Host

  • 4,554 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 18 January 2010 - 23:52

Indeed. The most hipocritical law in the UK is that powdered baby milk vendors aren't allowed to advertise their goods up till 6 months +. Until recently, the rule was no advertising at all!!

The breast feeding mafia jumped on the change to allow follow on milk advertising, but the question remains, why???

I have 3 boys, all of which were fed with formula milk, simply because my wife is unable to breastfeed. She was told by doctors that due to the medication that she takes, she is not allowed to breastfeed.

Why should she be stigmatised by the nutcase lobbyists? The same goes for smoking. It is legal to smoke, and I do smoke. Why is it ok for Johnny Walker to advertise in F1, (a really bad match IMHO), when Marlboro, or even SMA Gold aren't allowed to advertise? Obviously, alcohol is much better for you than formula milk!!!

Dangerously OT, but you may be interested:
Breast milk has few benefits, study finds - Irish Times
Is breast really best? - Daily Mail
Breast is still best - Times of Malta

Speaking for myself, alcohol is infinitely preferable to formula milk, but breast feeding... :love:

#50 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 23:59

I think the deal was for $200m per year....


While McLaren is on a 44M pound a year loss(2008) + loosing another 44M pounds a year of Mercedes money ...... thats almost a $400M swing.

(the new ferrari had better be faster than the McLaren)

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 19 January 2010 - 00:40.