Jump to content


Photo

Tobacco Giants


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#1 DarkknightRises

DarkknightRises
  • Member

  • 329 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 00:19

Anyone of you miss the tobacco era??

Marlboro, Mild Seven, West, JPS etc



Advertisement

#2 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,126 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 18 September 2012 - 00:23

No.

#3 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 00:24

I could not care less about which company with too much money wishes to sponsor an F1 team. Tobacco companies gave F1 some iconic liveries, but it's only marketing at the end of the day, and there have been good liveries with other companies plastered over the car.

Edited by Disgrace, 18 September 2012 - 00:25.


#4 Prost

Prost
  • Member

  • 37 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 00:24

why do i have to miss it ? did it bring something special ?

#5 OSX

OSX
  • Member

  • 4,165 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 18 September 2012 - 00:24

Yes, of course.

#6 DarkknightRises

DarkknightRises
  • Member

  • 329 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 00:25

Team will gain more financial stability if they are still around~~~~

#7 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 18 September 2012 - 01:25

Don't forget Gitanes, Camel, Rothmans, Skoal Bandits, Gold Leaf, Benson & Hedges, Lucky Strike, 555, Winfield, and Silk Cut Jags in LM.

Crap, now I feel like a smoke!

Edited by gm914, 18 September 2012 - 03:21.


#8 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 6,758 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 18 September 2012 - 01:41

Definitely miss it.



#9 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,726 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 02:11

Give me your money, I miss them.

#10 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 02:32

They definitely kept the sport in a better financial situation.

#11 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,588 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 03:07

f1 never recovered tbh


#12 Starish

Starish
  • Member

  • 985 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 03:33

Partially made F1 what it is .... of course I could never forget them, and I don't smoke.

#13 Woody3says

Woody3says
  • Member

  • 423 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 03:37

Racing as a whole has not recovered. Ferrari and Penske still wave the Marlboro flag but how many others have lost out on huge amounts of budget all in the name of political correctness??? I have never made a purchase decision based on sponsorship let alone go to the extreme of picking up a habit as smoking just because a team is sponsored by _____. To each his own. Smokers smoke NOT because of a sticker on a car. I say let the money pour in for the habit we all enjoy, racing......

#14 Pikachu Racing

Pikachu Racing
  • Member

  • 5,460 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 18 September 2012 - 03:56

I have. Without tobacco sponsorship NASCAR wouldn't be big as it is right now. Without Players there wouldn't be Greg Moore, Jacques Villeneuve, Patrick Carpentier, and influx of Canadian racing drivers in open wheel in the 90s. Without Gitanes Ligier wouldn't survive long til Prost bought it and sent it down the drain. Tobacco sponsorship did help its part in growth of auto racing.

Hope you political correctness bastards are happy. I want my old world back!

#15 bmardini

bmardini
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:34

Def miss it

Tobacco money came more plentiful and with far fewer headaches than bank money or telecom money.

Plus, they were always very active in junior series, which to me is more important.

In a way Red Bull is the only company (forget the race team) that reminds me of the hey-day of tobacco marketing.

Ex-smoker here, not sure why it matters to mention.

#16 Henrik B

Henrik B
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:37

In a way Red Bull is the only company (forget the race team) that reminds me of the hey-day of tobacco marketing.


Which should give a pause for thought right there.

#17 Bartel

Bartel
  • Member

  • 887 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:41

Yes, from a financial stand point, and aesthetic point of view, I for one liked the liveries they'd come up with. West easily takes the cake for me in the McLaren livery though.

#18 GotYoubyTheBalls

GotYoubyTheBalls
  • Member

  • 301 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:46

Yes i miss it. Most of the classic liveries were tobacco related. They bought much needed sponsor money, and its been proven that advertising ban has no effect, and furthermore actually helps tobacco companies as they dont have to compete in advertising budgets anymore.



#19 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,632 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:58

Yeah. 'Energy' drinks seem to be the new consumer commoditie to try and put its' image on motorsport (red bull, relentless, monster, lucozade etc.). Boring in comparision to tobacco IMO. It's hard to think of an everyday consumer product that wants to be associated with fun and excitement and finds it hard to use other media, and is also awash with money,and... and... has balls and a bit of risqueness about it. Alcohol I suppose, but maybe not a general direction that the motorsport image wants to go in.

Advertisement

#20 Deluxx

Deluxx
  • Member

  • 2,095 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 07:02

There are two sides to this...

The monetary aspect can be missed; obviously teams gained a large sum of money that could be better spent on testing/development/etc.

On the other hand, you can't say young impressionable minds don't see their favorite driver plastered with an iconic tobacco brand and decide that they themselves want to be as successful as them and use the brands that they endorse... Now I'm not saying everyone does this but if some didn't then tobacco brands wouldn't have been raking in money by the carton-load.

Double-edged sword.

#21 evol88

evol88
  • Member

  • 43 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 07:34

Racing as a whole has not recovered. Ferrari and Penske still wave the Marlboro flag but how many others have lost out on huge amounts of budget all in the name of political correctness??? I have never made a purchase decision based on sponsorship let alone go to the extreme of picking up a habit as smoking just because a team is sponsored by _____. To each his own. Smokers smoke NOT because of a sticker on a car. I say let the money pour in for the habit we all enjoy, racing......


So why did so many tobacco companies pour so much money into formula one? The link may not be as direct as me seeing Marlboro logos plastered on a Ferrari and thinking 'yeah, I'll go and buy a pack of Marlboro cigarettes', but it does work in a more subtle way. It's about creating a coherent brand image that suggests luxury, aspiration, sexiness and desirability. These tobacco companies essentially associated themselves with the 'glamorous' image of the sport.

#22 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,459 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 07:42

Not quite sure what there is to miss about these types of companies? :confused:

#23 RedBaron

RedBaron
  • Member

  • 2,765 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:14

F1 misses them, their absence ha had an effect, but it adapts and parts die off...

#24 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:22

I miss it, because it was (and still would be) a steady stream of cash for motorsport. Not only F1, but also rallies (including national level) and other.

People will smoke anyway, different car liveries won't change it. I think it's more about advertising your brand to smokers than about convincing people to start smoking.

#25 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 5,952 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:40

Not in the slightest. The less to do with tobacco the better.

#26 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 19,896 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:45

This thread is not for discussing the pros and cons on smoking nor is it to discuss the ethics or politics of tobacco advertising or the the tobacco industry.

#27 aray

aray
  • Member

  • 2,498 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:47

well,i have been watching F1 since 1998...tobacco companies started to depart very soon...so don't have any 'nostalgia' as such.....i liked Renault livery with mild seven...but perhaps blue being my favorite color was real reason...

#28 Grayson

Grayson
  • AUTOSPORT digital product manager

  • 1,293 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:05

Yes i miss it. Most of the classic liveries were tobacco related. They bought much needed sponsor money, and its been proven that advertising ban has no effect, and furthermore actually helps tobacco companies as they dont have to compete in advertising budgets anymore.

Smokers smoke NOT because of a sticker on a car.

Why do you guys think that the tobacco companies paid so much to associate themselves with Formula One, and why do you think they fought so hard against the advertising ban?

That's not a rhetorical question. I understand the argument that the advertising ban is positive for the tobacco companies because it means that they don't have spend money in an advertising and sponsorship arms race with each other, but unless they believed that they could also get a huge number of new smokers in because of their marketing I can't see why they would have lobbied so hard against the ban rather than welcoming it with open arms!

#29 teejay

teejay
  • Member

  • 3,550 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:06

I miss their money, was good for the sport.

#30 taran

taran
  • Member

  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:13

Yes, from a financial stand point, and aesthetic point of view, I for one liked the liveries they'd come up with. West easily takes the cake for me in the McLaren livery though.


:)

Actually, that livery was not West but Mercedes-Benz. Das Haus bought the livery rights (allegedly for $20m) in 1996 and all McLaren sponsors had to adhere to it. Which meant West (red & white) and Mobil (blue, red, white & black) had to give up their house colours.

#31 greenman

greenman
  • Member

  • 554 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:17

Why do you guys think that the tobacco companies paid so much to associate themselves with Formula One, and why do you think they fought so hard against the advertising ban?

That's not a rhetorical question. I understand the argument that the advertising ban is positive for the tobacco companies because it means that they don't have spend money in an advertising and sponsorship arms race with each other, but unless they believed that they could also get a huge number of new smokers in because of their marketing I can't see why they would have lobbied so hard against the ban rather than welcoming it with open arms!

Here:

I think it's more about advertising your brand to smokers than about convincing people to start smoking.


I do kinda miss it, for the reasons mentioned in this thread.


#32 TFLB

TFLB
  • Member

  • 1,616 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:19

I miss the liveries, nothing more.

#33 slmk

slmk
  • Member

  • 4,398 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:20

I could not care less about which company with too much money wishes to sponsor an F1 team. Tobacco companies gave F1 some iconic liveries, but it's only marketing at the end of the day, and there have been good liveries with other companies plastered over the car.


Oh so wrong.

#34 BlackCat

BlackCat
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:27

started to follow F1 when Lotus had just done their first deal with Gold Leaf - as a teenager behind Iron Curtain, for some time i had no idea what product that Gold Leaf was. so, tobacco liveries have been a normal part of F1, just like fatalities. i'm not following NASCAR much, so when seeing news it takes a moment to sort it out which level is which - then it dawns on me: oh, yes, they call Winston Cup Sprint Cup now...

#35 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:39

Of course advertising increases consumption.

Good riddance.

If only someone would end the last - and now completely unfair - bastion of using F1 to promote smoking among their impressionable young fans...

#36 montoyasminion

montoyasminion
  • Member

  • 377 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:43

You'd be crazy to say no. Look what happened to the grids once the tobacco money was gone. Not just F1, but MotoGP as well.

#37 ayali

ayali
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:45

It made for good liveries and the money was very welcome but the times they are changing

Thankfully Ferrari and Marlboro have found a perfectly legal way to keep the money flowing and the sponsoring ongoing.

#38 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,401 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:45

There's plenty of great classic, nostalgic liveries which evoke great memories, but I certainly don't miss the tobacco money in the sport. There is a reason why I look at my dad's generation and almost everyone smokes there, I look at mine hardly anyone smokes. And it's not just cost (although tobacco has gone beyond expensive now). Advertising works very effectively even if no-one has ever said "I went to buy a pack of smokes because I saw a sign with Marlboro written". The effect is far more subtle than that but is very strong.

People should be free to smoke, absolutely, but I certainly don't want it to be glamourized. F1 helped it being glamourized a lot.

As for teams missing budget, young drivers schemes not existing anymore, such is the way of the world and the ban on tobacco advertising only accelerated it, not created it. Even if Marlboro, Mild Seven, Lucky Strike, JPS, West etc all were still in the sport, you think their drivers would be able to compete with Maldonado bringing in a massive briefcase with 20M of public Venezuelan money? You think there wouldn't be all this talk of teams having to cut costs? If there was more money in the sport all it'd do would be to make it more expensive to compete at the top.

Thanks for the memories, but good riddance.

#39 evol88

evol88
  • Member

  • 43 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:46

Oh so wrong.


In what way? In 20 years time, people will talk about iconic cars of the post-tobacco era in exactly the same way. Personally, I think the Lotus 78 could have looked equally good painted in a different colour scheme and without JPS decals.

Sure cigarette companies brought in some aesthetically pleasing colour schemes, but then again, in the days before tobacco money, we had GP cars that were painted in national racing colours and we rightly admire them for their beauty.

Advertisement

#40 slmk

slmk
  • Member

  • 4,398 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:12

If tobacco advertising is banned, then junk food and alcohol advertising must be banned as well (so no Diageo, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonalds, etc.). The double-standard is just ridiculous.

Edited by slmk, 18 September 2012 - 10:12.


#41 Fonzey

Fonzey
  • Member

  • 176 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:19

It hurt the sport no question, and it almost killed another sport which I enjoy to follow (snooker).

If people are stupid enough to start a habit such as smoking due to advertising on a car, maybe they deserve the consequences? I've never smoked in my life, but if given the choice I'd take the money those companies pumped into sport for sure.

That said, with the economy in the state its in - who's to say the tobacco companies would still be in F1 regardless, perhaps they'd be forced into withdrawing anyway. The price of cigarettes has gone up excessively* since the "ban" so they're probably not the financial powerhouses they once were anyway.

*Due to tax

Edited by Fonzey, 18 September 2012 - 10:20.


#42 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,390 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:28

Do I miss it? Not really.

Do I find it nostaligic? Hell yes! Reminds me of the days as a youngster where teletext was pretty much the F1 internet - and Autosport was less than 2 quid. That and the lovely Marlboro and Rothmans girls handing out free ciggies at the British Grand Prix...... And I didn't even smoke!........ And never have done for that matter.

Edited by maverick69, 18 September 2012 - 10:30.


#43 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 6,873 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:29

Funnily enough my two favourite liveries from the "tobacco era" were smoke free. Canon Williams and Benetton (original, bold, in-house livery). I don't really miss it.

#44 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,401 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:29

If tobacco advertising is banned, then junk food and alcohol advertising must be banned as well (so no Diageo, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonalds, etc.). The double-standard is just ridiculous.


Junk food is as unhealthy (or even more so) but not anywhere near as addictive. And you don't make people fat by eating a Big Mac next to them, whereas you can give them lung cancer by smoking next to them. This is why restrictions on smoking advertising are much higher. I do think it's somewhat perverse to have junk food commercials directly aimed at children though.

But don't get me wrong, I don't want to live in a world made of anal PR correctness neither, people should be entirely free to do unhealthy stuff if they want to! Just don't think it's right to allow companies to brainwash people that they should consume those unhealthy products...

Getting a little too much into non-racing discussion here, however, so I will stop, if anyone wants to continue I'm available to open a thread on Paddock Club.

Edited by noikeee, 18 September 2012 - 10:30.


#45 The Kanisteri

The Kanisteri
  • Member

  • 10,474 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:45

No. Tobacco is bad.

#46 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:00

Oh so wrong.


Wrong in the sense that I should care which company sponsors an F1 team, who partakes in a sport that will gladly enter a country whilst it politically suppresses its people? I think you may have noticed, the moral aspect is really irrelevant.

Wrong that sponsor liveries aren't marketing? Even pre-Tobacco liveries were advertising nationality with national colours.

Wrong that we haven't had good liveries otherwise, like the McLaren chrome livery?

#47 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,708 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:17

If tobacco advertising is banned, then junk food and alcohol advertising must be banned as well (so no Diageo, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonalds, etc.). The double-standard is just ridiculous.


It's moving that way now here in NY, The just banned large sodas. I think it's stupid that the people let the gov't tell them how to live. Soon it will come back to haunt us.

#48 slmk

slmk
  • Member

  • 4,398 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:22

Wrong in the sense that I should care which company sponsors an F1 team, who partakes in a sport that will gladly enter a country whilst it politically suppresses its people? I think you may have noticed, the moral aspect is really irrelevant.

Wrong that sponsor liveries aren't marketing? Even pre-Tobacco liveries were advertising nationality with national colours.

Wrong that we haven't had good liveries otherwise, like the McLaren chrome livery?


That was badly phrased on my end. I do agree with this post, though. The main point remains that there hasn't been one iconic livery since 2005. McLaren chrome livery is as generic as it gets.

#49 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 5,952 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:37

It hurt the sport no question, and it almost killed another sport which I enjoy to follow (snooker).


Then blame F1 (and snooker) for being so dependent on tobacco money in the first place. As you said, if tobacco advertising was still allowed there is no guarantee the companies would be willing to spend the equivalent amount of money anyway, so we could still be facing a dearth of money. It's economics 101 not to base all your income on one source.

It's moving that way now here in NY, The just banned large sodas. I think it's stupid that the people let the gov't tell them how to live. Soon it will come back to haunt us.


Meh I don't know. When people do stupid things what do you expect?

That was badly phrased on my end. I do agree with this post, though. The main point remains that there hasn't been one iconic livery since 2005. McLaren chrome livery is as generic as it gets.


Then blame the current livery designers if you don't like any of the designs. The previous ones could of been created regardless of whose name was on the car.

#50 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,174 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:39

why do i have to miss it ? did it bring something special ?

Yes, the John Player one.