74 replies to this topic

[Ferrari2183]

I don't want to sound ignorant here, but I am wondering, does the EU's power extend beyond its own borders? I mean, for example, let's say F1 decides (hypothetically speaking, I know this wil never happen) to get out of all EU countries, say, no more races in the EU, no more TV broadcasts to EU countries (yeah, i know, will never happen, but lets' say hypothetically), would the EU be still able to enforce such laws? I mean, I remember Chinese airlines just ignoring the EU's fines for their refusal to pay the carbon air emissions tax.

You have to abide by the laws of the country in which you race. In 2007/2008 Ferrari could still flaunt their Marlboro logos at some venues.

[Clatter]

There was an advert way back when F1 was on ITV that showed a guy, in race overalls, holding a bottle, that looked like champagne.

He grinned, and rotated the bottle and the "LEMONADE" was shown in prominent letters...and then proceeded to do the podium jizz job...

 

The point was, adverts on TV are not allowed to associate alcohol with anything to do with driving - I think the point of this is, that should driving sports be allowed to be associated with alcohol?

And yet the UK government allow pubs to be opened on motorway service areas. 

[Blundle]

This cant be a big problem. In India, alcohol adverts on TV are banned so every alcohol company have their own mineral water or soda that is advertised all the time. This includes the branding as well everywhere 

The legislation could be drawn up to cover any associated product that shares the logos / branding etc. That’s what happened with Tobacco I think.

[Sash1]

Distillers/breweries could put a positive spin on it and advertise alcoholfree options. 

Krombacher Fassbrause / Weizen Radler Alcoholfrei / Radler Alcoholfrei
Amstel Radler 0,0

Bavaria 0,0

Birell

 

The Radler 0's are booming business and perfect to associate with driving cars. Started to drink one at a golf party last month and suddenly 100 people were going for it as they still had to drive after a nice warm day on the course. On the other hand, with the decline of the F1 audience I am not sure it is the perfect event to aim at. For less money they can run weekend racing events with free entry and entertain a "sold" out track with much more brand awareness and impact. As well as immediate return on investment if they sell it there (without having to hand over all profit to an old bitter gnome). 

[Fonzey]

 

I wonder how entire generations of people who grew up on Tom & Jerry didn't turn into mass murderers???

 

[repete]

No advertising of commercial products should be banned. I am sorry if you are stupid enough to smoke and/or drink/drive/overdrink. Personal responsibility is lost in the world.

[Tsarwash]

It strikes me as a very odd situation when "the man in the street" of these forums is up in arms defending the manipulative agenda of drug pushers and hating on what medical researchers and psychologists recommend.

 

Chill people. There will still be adverts on your screens pimping stuff you don't need.

And as a side effect of limiting the damage of marketing departments the world over, you will pay less taxes.

I am one of those drug pushers, and believe me it's getting more and more difficult to get people addicted to this killer drug. My existing customers keep on dropping dead on me, fortunately not many of them drop dead in my pub, no more than two a week at least. People really don't want to drink, so I have to resort to ever nefarious means in or order to get them hooked. Dastardly things like offering snacks or food, or playing them music that they like. 

[chipmcdonald]

It's ridiculous, unless one is promulgating sharia law.   Brand recognition has nothing to do with magically inciting someone to want to drink and drive, just because a label is on a car.   Intellectually vapid.

[CoolBreeze]

This is just pure silly. 

 

I grew up with tobacco ads in F1. And from my opinion they struck me as having a few unforgettable liveries. The West Mclaren, the Mild Seven Renault, Gauloises Prost Peugeot, the Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro...

 

Not once, i had to urge to light up when i see those cars during races. Not once, i see Schumi on the top step of the podium, and I suddenly start thinking about smoking. 

 

COuple of years down the road, i got a job with Philip Morris, and we used to get 2 cartons of ciggies for free every month. I normally returned it back, and even though i worked about 2 years at Philip Morris, visited their factory and operations, I never had the urge to smoke. It's just a personal choice. 

 

I used to drink years ago. Quite badly. I often clubbed, drank until i was high, etc, and drove back home. I was in my early 20s, and it was stupid. I just decided to stop drinking altogether in 2010. Today, i still head to the clubs, bars and pubs. I enjoy myself with my friends, but it's a personal choice not to touch alcohol. It's all just a stage i think. 

 

However, seeing those ads, being around with people who drink and smoke never tempted me to start drinking again, or even light a puff. I don't see how banning tobacco ads and alcohol ads are going to solve the social problems. I rather educate the people, then being a hypocrite and hide everything from everyone. If they are really thinking about health issues, then ban fast food and also so called energy drinks. Promote plain water and salads. 

 

The government makes a lot of money with taxes from alcohol and tobacco. If it's really dangerous as claimed, why are they even selling it? Because of the tax money they make. Hypocrites. 

[Jovanotti]

IF they're serious about banning certain ads, it would actually make more sense to ban alcohol than tobacco, because the collateral damage drunk people cause to others is way higher than the one of smokers. I don't mind people smoking, paying my old-age insurance through their taxes and dying before they get to cash it in themselves, but I certainly do mind getting run over by a drunkard in his car on my way home.

[Murl]

I am one of those drug pushers, and believe me it's getting more and more difficult to get people addicted to this killer drug. My existing customers keep on dropping dead on me, fortunately not many of them drop dead in my pub, no more than two a week at least. People really don't want to drink, so I have to resort to ever nefarious means in or order to get them hooked. Dastardly things like offering snacks or food, or playing them music that they like. 

 

 

The thing with addictive substances is that they sell themselves. Once you have people hooked.

Got to plant that seed early with advertising, or people might grow up missing out.

[Tsarwash]

The thing with addictive substances is that they sell themselves. Once you have people hooked.

Got to plant that seed early with advertising, or people might grow up missing out.

I think you are missing the point about alcohol, as opposed to other substances. MOST people who drink are not addicted. Must be 95% of people who smoke are addicted. You can drink regularly for ten years and not get addicted, the addiction is not the same as others.  Your granny who has a port every Christmas, is she addicted ? I do think that I understand alcohol more than many, as it is my profession. And I'm sorry, but it seems apparent that you do not. 

[Murl]

I think you are missing the point about alcohol, as opposed to other substances. MOST people who drink are not addicted. Must be 95% of people who smoke are addicted. You can drink regularly for ten years and not get addicted, the addiction is not the same as others.  Your granny who has a port every Christmas, is she addicted ? I do think that I understand alcohol more than many, as it is my profession. And I'm sorry, but it seems apparent that you do not. 

 

 

Alcohol is your profession?

 

In what context...

 

How is it that you have no clue as to the harm caused by alcohol. You want to increase that harm?

Edited by Murl, 14 November 2014 - 20:30.

[LeClerc]

Eventually every one of us will die. Whether is is with a song on our lips or a stern outlook doesn't really matter.

 

P.S. I prefer to go out baked

[Tsarwash]

Alcohol is your profession?

 

In what context...

 

How is it that you have no clue as to the harm caused by alcohol. You want to increase that harm?

How did you come to that conclusion ? Because it certainly isn't from anything that I have actually said. You are obviously very much against alcohol in principle, but do you really think that everybody who drinks alcohol causes harm ?

 

I sell alcohol to people by the way. it is my living. I run a pub.

[Murl]

 

I sell alcohol to people by the way. it is my living. I run a pub.

 

Vested interest.

 

Your perspective is about as skewed as it is possible to get, unless you owned a brewery.

It is still good to hear your perspective...

 

My own perspective, I'm not anti-alcohol at all.

OTOH I see no issue with marketing controls on dangerous and harmful products.

 

We can live in a world that doesn't ram drug glamorizing messages down our throats, and still be free to choose.

It isn't that scary to me.

[Gilles4Ever]

Please keep the discussion to the effects of such a ban would have on motorsport and the merits of a ban on alcohol promotion and the effects of alcohol for a more appropriate forum like paddock club.

RC is not the place to discuss the effects of alcohol.

[ronsingapore]

You have to abide by the laws of the country in which you race. In 2007/2008 Ferrari could still flaunt their Marlboro logos at some venues.

Ok thanks, cause I read somewhere in a printed newspaper (I could be wrong here) that the initial outrage was from the spraying of champagne in the Brazilian GP (again, I could be wrong here), so i was wondering that if it is in Brazil, how does the interference from across the Atlantic ocean applies?

[Tsarwash]

Please keep the discussion to the effects of such a ban would have on motorsport and the merits of a ban on alcohol promotion and the effects of alcohol for a more appropriate forum like paddock club.

RC is not the place to discuss the effects of alcohol.

Sorry point taken.

 

Vested interest.

 

Your perspective is about as skewed as it is possible to get, unless you owned a brewery.

It is still good to hear your perspective...

 

My own perspective, I'm not anti-alcohol at all.

OTOH I see no issue with marketing controls on dangerous and harmful products.

 

We can live in a world that doesn't ram drug glamorizing messages down our throats, and still be free to choose.

It isn't that scary to me.

Murl, we should continue this in the Paddock Club.

[chipmcdonald]

F1 is one thing, but for you guys living in the EU I would be more concerned about the EU making laws for you regarding visibility of the demon alcohol.   Tobacco made complete sense, there is a difference between something that is definitely bad for you versus the "concept" that something can be *potentially* bad for you, and "we" are going to save you from it.

 

No champagne on the podium?  Really?  What group of people would want that to be the norm....?

[Risil]

Distillers/breweries could put a positive spin on it and advertise alcoholfree options. 

Krombacher Fassbrause / Weizen Radler Alcoholfrei / Radler Alcoholfrei
Amstel Radler 0,0

Bavaria 0,0

Birell

 

Spanish brewery Estrella Galicia advertise their 0,0% brand on the side of Emilio Alzamora's Honda junior team in Moto3. Given the ages of Alexes Marquez and Rins -- not to mention 15-year-old Fabio Quartararo, who's lined up for next year -- a very expedient move.

Not sure how you make this alcohol-free, though:

Edited by Risil, 15 November 2014 - 15:47.

[Murl]

Sorry point taken.

 

Murl, we should continue this in the Paddock Club.

 

Yes, agree.

 

Or better yet at your pub over a pint

[tmekt]

Well the one thing FIA shouldn't do is to voluntarily ban any kind of advertising as it would make the financial situation more difficult for teams (how much, depends on what's banned).

That said, smoking and drinking cost huge amounts of money to tax-payers in every country and efforts to reduce them are justified in that sense. It's a matter of your personal opinion whether you want to increase individual freedom or the common good.

The advertising definitely is effective. I, personally, may or may not smoke Lucky Strikes because of the notorious logos on the BAR-Hondas.

[doc83]

Well the one thing FIA shouldn't do is to voluntarily ban any kind of advertising as it would make the financial situation more difficult for teams (how much, depends on what's banned).

That said, smoking and drinking cost huge amounts of money to tax-payers in every country and efforts to reduce them are justified in that sense. It's a matter of your personal opinion whether you want to increase individual freedom or the common good.

The advertising definitely is effective. I, personally, may or may not smoke Lucky Strikes because of the notorious logos on the BAR-Hondas.

 

Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are so big they probably exceed the costs of treating conditions related to alcohol and smoking. But of course someone would have to count that.

 

Also following logic that  looking at alcohol ads promotes “drinking and driving” we should ban telecommunication companies ads as well for causing driving and talking on the cellphone accidents. 

[tmekt]

Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are so big they probably exceed the costs of treating conditions related to alcohol and smoking. But of course someone would have to count that.

Taxation varies a lot from country to country so you really can't make that kind of statements. The exact costs aren't easy to define either.

 

You could only count the combined amount of tax revenue brought in by alcohol and tobacco products but that usually includes VAT/GST and the usual Pigovian taxes attributed to these kind of products. So would you calculate the whole amount or just the "extra" tax specific to alcohol and cigarettes? There's also the question of direct and indirect costs, it doesn't stop at the health care costs of related conditions and there's also a wide variety of other things you need to consider with both (reduced life expectancy, sickness absences, crime, accidents, etc.).

 

 

 

Also following logic that  looking at alcohol ads promotes “drinking and driving” we should ban telecommunication companies ads as well for causing driving and talking on the cellphone accidents. 

Telecommunication companies' marketing is more beneficial to society than alcohol advertising as both increase the sales of the respective goods and it's pretty obvious which is preferable, increased connectivity or increased drunkenness. Sounds pretty much like a false analogy to me. 

 

EDIT: I realize this very much off-topic, hoping the mods won't notice 

Edited by tmekt, 18 November 2014 - 14:34.