114 replies to this topic

[Zoony]

The publication of the 2009 F1 entry list yesterday, and its inclusion of 'Scuderia Ferrrari Marlboro' as an entrant reminded me that Max promised that he was going to ban tobacco from F1. Wasn't it 'by 2006' or thereabouts?

And yet, here we are in 2009 and we still have an F1 team being allowed to accept sponsorship from Marlboro, and an FIA that is apparently happy to receive an entrant bearing a cigarette brand name.

I have no axe to grind as regards the smoking debate; they could all have tobacco money as far as I'm concerned, but I believe all teams should have a level playing field, as it were.

The British based teams are legally banned from receiving sponsorship monies from tobacco, courtesy of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, but evidently Italian companies are not subject to similar legislation in their country. Logos are banned Europe-wide of course, but in the UK it is against the law to receive sponsorship from tobacco, regardless of whether logos are displayed.

Are not Ferrari, being exempt from the UK legislation, being given an unfair advantage in the shape of the Philip Morris zillions they receive?

Max could stop it at a stroke.

[carbonfibre]

Ferrari is doing nothing illegal, sure it's a shame for the other teams but if it was the other way around they would have done the same thing, and i really can't see a problem with them having a tobacco compagny as a title sponsor. In fact i would be happy if they would lift the ban of tobacco sponsorship and let all teams have a sponsor like that.

I already said this before in many threads but i believe that it's bs that if you see a name like Marlboro on the side of a car you will have the urge to and start smoking. People that start to smoke or are smoking would have done it anyway.

[Mark Bennett]

Having been at a British GP in the early 80's where they seemed to play an advert over the PA System every 2 min...

Start of the theme from 'The Big Country', with a voiceover "This is the sound of Marlboro Country..."

and hearing 90,000 people collectively scream each time it was played, I know that certain advertising can have a very strong effect on consumers. I have a feeling that there are 90,000 people who would never touch a Marlboro, whether they originally smoked or not!

[Slartibartfast]

What happened to the FIA eradicating tobacco from F1?

It went up in smoke.

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

What bothers me more is such a great team having that ugly barcode design on its car.

[Davebo]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast


It went up in smoke.

Whip smoke...

[lukywill]

can you imagine williams sponsored by white heroin with this logo on their car?

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by lukywill
can you imagine williams sponsored by white heroin with this logo on their car?

No. But I'd like to see this on the side of a McLaren:

[kar]

Originally posted by Buttoneer

No. But I'd like to see this on the side of a McLaren:

[mursuka80]

Originally posted by Buttoneer

No. But I'd like to see this on the side of a McLaren:

Brilliant Im gonna go smoke MARLBORO now

[pingu666]

how about cocaine?
for when red bull just isnt enough ;)

notsure how much phillip morris pump into ferrari, but without them the FIA would be ferrari's biggest sponser...

[Josta]

Originally posted by Mark Bennett
Having been at a British GP in the early 80's where they seemed to play an advert over the PA System every 2 min...

Start of the theme from 'The Big Country', with a voiceover "This is the sound of Marlboro Country..."

and hearing 90,000 people collectively scream each time it was played, I know that certain advertising can have a very strong effect on consumers. I have a feeling that there are 90,000 people who would never touch a Marlboro, whether they originally smoked or not!

What a load of old bollocks. I smoke Marlboro, despite them being Ferrari sponsors when I hated the MS/Ferrari domination. What you are saying is that the 90,000 people ALL smoked Marlboro, which is just plain silly.

Presumably, if you are a McLaren fan, you would only ever consider Vodafone. If you are a Toyota fan, you would go out and buy a Panasonic TV, even if you didn't wan't one. If you love Renault, you would immediately go out and use ING Direct for insurance products that you wouldn't otherwise buy.

In short, you are talking bullshit.

[Mark Bennett]

Originally posted by Josta


What a load of old bollocks. I smoke Marlboro, despite them being Ferrari sponsors when I hated the MS/Ferrari domination. What you are saying is that the 90,000 people ALL smoked Marlboro, which is just plain silly.

Presumably, if you are a McLaren fan, you would only ever consider Vodafone. If you are a Toyota fan, you would go out and buy a Panasonic TV, even if you didn't wan't one. If you love Renault, you would immediately go out and use ING Direct for insurance products that you wouldn't otherwise buy.

In short, you are talking bullshit.

Not what I said at all

I meant that the advert was played so often, for hours on end, that everyone around me was going "Auuugh" after several hours of it (get there at 6, and the GP doesn't start until 2PM...)
I never said 90,00 people smoked Marlboro, I said that it likely put 90,000 people off Marlboro whether they originally smoked or not

I think you may have missed the point I intended to make, which was mostly light-hearted (after all this time anyway ;) )

[VresiBerba]

Ah, the annual tobacco-thread

Originally posted by carbonfibre
I already said this before in many threads but i believe that it's bs that if you see a name like Marlboro on the side of a car you will have the urge to and start smoking. People that start to smoke or are smoking would have done it anyway.

And many have ridiculed that claim because, if it was true, it would make the very concept of advertising null and void which in turn would make those who advertise complete bonkers in their head for spending hundreds of millions on advertising.

Makes one wonder, doesn't it. Then again on second thought, no, it doesn't.

[Josta]

Originally posted by VresiBerba
Ah, the annual tobacco-thread

And many have ridiculed that claim because, if it was true, it would make the very concept of advertising null and void which in turn would make those who advertise complete bonkers in their head for spending hundreds of millions on advertising.

Makes one wonder, doesn't it. Then again on second thought, no, it doesn't.

Not really. If you are a smoker, you may be tempted by adverts from cigarette companies. Just as if you are a burger eater, you may be tempted by McDonalds adverts.

I have yet to see proof that McDonalds adverts convert vegetarians to eat meat.

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by Josta


Not really. If you are a smoker, you may be tempted by adverts from cigarette companies. Just as if you are a burger eater, you may be tempted by McDonalds adverts.

I have yet to see proof that McDonalds adverts convert vegetarians to eat meat.

McDonalds adverts probably do tempt vegetarians to try burgers, but I suspect McDonalds burgers have converted more people into vegetarians.

[Lazy Prodigy]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast


McDonalds adverts probably do tempt vegetarians to try burgers, but I suspect McDonalds burgers have converted more people into vegetarians.

I feel different. McDonalds temps you to eat their burgers instead of say Burger Kings. Sure they want new customers but if you dont smoke and eat burgers for health reasons then you probably wouldn't smoke or eat burgers at all. I think its the same with Marlboro, saying smoke us instead of West, Lucky strike, or Virgina Slims. As for the FIA banning tobacco I thought this was dependent on the country and laws where the teams are based.

[GerardF1]

Back when I was a smoker I smoked brands that sponsored F1 or Teams I followed.

JPS from back int the Lotus days ( the black and gold livery was among the best ever put on an f1 car)

Players from when JV was in Indycar and Rothmans later,

Last off I smoked B&H.

It affected my choice of brand - not if I was going to smoke.

All things being equal I will choose the product of an F1 sponsor over a non-sponsor.

as an example my choice of scotch is Johnny Walker


There are a few exceptions
I never liked Bridgestone tyres - I always went with Pirelli or Michelin
I never smoked Marlboro

[GerardF1]

Originally posted by F1Fanatic.co.uk
What bothers me more is such a great team having that ugly barcode design on its car.

Can't agree with the "great team" bit - but the barcode has been one of the uglier things on an F1 car for years

But if they want to pay that kind of money to put nothing there ... I guess tobacco is a recession proof product

[byrkus]

I've never even tried smoking (I'm 31 now), but I know quite a few of tobacco brands. Thanks to F1, that is. Besides, some of them had REALLY nice designs, like Gauloises' stylized ancient helmet, JPS' gold on black lettering, or 555's yellow & blue combination. But - did that EVER convinced me to start smoking? No, not really.

IMHO, it's all like witch hunting these days. First tobacco, then alcohol - who knows what comes next.

[taran]

Originally posted by byrkus
I've never even tried smoking (I'm 31 now), but I know quite a few of tobacco brands. Thanks to F1, that is. Besides, some of them had REALLY nice designs, like Gauloises' stylized ancient helmet, JPS' gold on black lettering, or 555's yellow & blue combination. But - did that EVER convinced me to start smoking? No, not really.

IMHO, it's all like witch hunting these days. First tobacco, then alcohol - who knows what comes next.

Banks.

We all know those are bad for you........

[jcbc3]

Pheeew. My guess was 'sex'.

[KWSN - DSM]

All teams should be allowed to be sponsored by companies selling products which are not illegal. If there is a great concern about smoking and it's health impact, then ban smoking all together.

People make choices, good choices and bad choices. Often they make bad choices, knowing that it is a bad choice. I used to smoke, I knew and know that smoking is not healthy, that about 50% of smokers die due to smoke induced health issues, most likely my dad got his throat cancer and passed through 60 years of heavy smoking.

But I liked to smoke, and were it not for the GF, I would be smoking again. Making the bad unhealthy choice, but making a choice to do something I like.

Smoking is not the only unhealthy choices humans can and do make, we can drink, over eat, under eat, eat to many pills, use fossil fuels and life hums on regardless. The Tobacco campaigns are just the one that took fancy, and will be replaced by something else in some years.

[MikeTekRacing]

well, f1 is in crisis and can't find money
tobacco money will do just fine

[topski100]

Without tobacco sponsorship in motorsport, I would have never known who Chesterfield, Rothmans, Lucky Strike, West (from bike racing), Mild Seven, Gauloises, JPS, Gitanes, Embassy or 555 (cars) - represented.

In fact, when I was a wee boy, I thought King Fisher was a make of bread(!) and Barclay was a bank (understandable), that was until I spotted them on the side of a racer, at which point due to being a complete anorak, I had to know who they where.

So I guess the sponsorship raised their profiles to me, yet I've never smoked.

[alfa1]

A bit of googling found that there isnt a ban on tobacco after all.

It seems that perhaps there was the intent to have a ban, as noted here by Max Mosley, 2002
...we have been campaigning, together with the World Health Organisation, for a global ban on tobacco sponsorship in 2006 and everything is now geared towards that date, the 1st October 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ost/2394263.stm

But there was a disagreement about the timing of a ban, and whether the FIA was even allowed to dictate commercial agreements between teams and sponsors.

Mosley interview, 2006.
Q: (Steve Cooper) In Barcelona, Bernie Ecclestone was saying that tobacco advertising would stay in Formula One beyond 2005 and 2006. Don’t you think the sport has dropped the ball by not agreeing to accept the convention and what is the future for tobacco in Formula One and how long will it stay?

MM: Everything was fixed, as far as we were concerned, for the end of 2006, and then, unfortunately, the health department, what was then DG5 in the commission, went and moved the date from their original date to the end of July, 2005, and, of course, that interfered with all the contracts so then arrangements have to be made to keep racing despite what the EU has done, this has driven some of the races outside Europe and now, of course, people are saying, well, why stop in 2006? Meanwhile, we were told by our lawyers that we were not in the position to impose a ban because that would be interfering with the commercial side of the sport, which we promised the European Commission we wouldn’t do, so, in a nutshell it is a complete mess thanks to the health people in the European Commission and I think it probably will go on after 2006 and they are 100 percent to blame and we are just dealing with impossible people. It is quite annoying actually because we did everything and then, as I say, they messed it up. So I think it is a pity, I think it would have been better if we had a clean break at some point because then on that date everyone would know that it would stop completely and other industries, like the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, and various other people who at the moment are reluctant to come in would be in and that perhaps would be better. But, again, it is out of our control, it is not something that we can deal with because it is entirely a commercial matter between the teams, their sponsors and, of course, the laws of the countries where we race.

Q: (Steve Cooper) But isn’t it bad for the sport’s image?
MM: What can you do? It is a commercial matter. I mean it is just the same as if somebody sues a big company and loses, it is bad for the image of Formula One but we can’t interfere with it.
http://www.formula1....004/6/1626.html


And so the FIA ban never actually ended up happening.
Mosley bashers can add it to the long list of his failings. Mosley supporters can pretend it is some kind of a victory.
Even as early as 2003, the proposed ban had already been watered down to a mere recommendation, as seen in this news item of 2003...

The FIA World Council has altered the wording of its ban on tobacco sponsorship in 2006 on the advice of its lawyers. The ban, which was voted by the World Council in October 2000 was due to come into operation in 2006. The FIA now says that the ban has become a recommendation that promoters, circuit owners, event organizers, teams, and drivers "should cease all forms of tobacco sponsorship from October 1, 2006".
http://www.grandprix...ns/ns11381.html

As an example, the following comment in an interview with Jean Todt has the interviewer referring only to "unattractive" conditions, and not a ban...
Q: From the tobacco sponsors in the paddock only Ferrari’s, Philip Morris, will continue after 2006, staying under conditions which other manufacturers found unattractive. Is the marketing option that Ferrari offers so irresistible that it outweighs the tobacco advertising ban?
JT: The relation with Philip Morris has been and continues to be very positive for both firms. The partnership was started over 30 years ago and has recently been renewed until 2011.
http://www.formula1....006/3/4055.html

Having said that, the reason why Marlboro uses the barcode logo instead of the Marlboro name, appears to be because of the EU ban on tobacco logos, and nothing at all to do with an F1 ban on anything.

[Montoya1]

I get the impression, if any other team had carried on with cig sponsorship, the FIA would have put a stop to it.

[Zoony]

Originally posted by alfa1
A bit of googling found that there isnt a ban on tobacco after all.

The FIA World Council has altered the wording of its ban on tobacco sponsorship in 2006 on the advice of its lawyers. The ban, which was voted by the World Council in October 2000 was due to come into operation in 2006. The FIA now says that the ban has become a recommendation that promoters, circuit owners, event organizers, teams, and drivers "should cease all forms of tobacco sponsorship from October 1, 2006".
http://www.grandprix...ns/ns11381.html

Having said that, the reason why Marlboro uses the barcode logo instead of the Marlboro name, appears to be because of the EU ban on tobacco logos, and nothing at all to do with an F1 ban on anything.

Yes, that was my original question, really: "The FIA's 'ban' never happened. Why?" And you have explained very well what happened to it: Lawyers. Thanks.

I still think it is unfair for UK-based teams though, when teams from other countries can draw on tobacco money, and yet they cannot. Ferrari have an advantage, it seems to me.

On the last point about non-use of actual logos, Marlboro could theoretically still display them outside of the EU of course, which is what Max was alluding to when he said that tobacco had 'driven some of the races outside Europe'. But Philip Morris themselves have imposed their own voluntary ban on the logos; they decided last spring that there will be no more of their logos on a Ferrari. Which made China 2007 the last tobacco branded GP, I believe.

(I'm sorry if I started the 'annual tobacco thread'. It wasn't my intention to do that. Indeed, in my OP I did point out that I didn't care one way or the other about the rights or wrongs about smoking or advertising. My post was purely about the fairness -or unfairness- of the financial implications of different laws as they affect different teams.)

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Montoya1
I get the impression, if any other team had carried on with cig sponsorship, the FIA would have put a stop to it.

I can't imagine that Ferrari would be short of sponsor suitors.

[Montoya1]

Agreed, but that does not negate my point.

[Nobody]

I smoke Phillip Morris cigarettes, and I don't want my money going to Ferrari... I should quit.

But its also time for 'Ferrari' to quit their tobacco addiction as well.

I also think it a bit stupid to have alcohol sponsorship on race cars as well.

[Rinehart]

Ferrari are 'carrying on with tobacco sponsorship' because its perfectly legal.

The rule is that cars cannot run in most countries now anyway with tobacco BRANDING on due to ATAL (anti tobacco advertising legislation) nothing to do with F1. All F1 had was a dispensation to delay implementation.

Nowadays it is implemented its also against the FIA rules to run with tobacco BRANDING and Ferrari are not doing so. The rules and ATAL law do not cover (1) Team ownership/sponsorship (2) Team investment (3) Advertising and marketing opportunities away from F1 official events

Marlboro created the barcode as a 'brand identifier' back in the 1990's as part of their brand strategy for what would become a 'tobacco dark market' in the post ATAL era. Its perfectly legal since it does not bear any resemblance to or carry the name of existing Marlboro logos. It is thus not BRANDING if the brand cannot be recognised.

Perfectly legit.

[Garagiste]

Originally posted by Nobody
I smoke Phillip Morris cigarettes, and I don't want my money going to Ferrari... I should quit.

But its also time for 'Ferrari' to quit their tobacco addiction as well.

I also think it a bit stupid to have alcohol sponsorship on race cars as well.

May I reccommend Lucky Strike Silver as an excellent alternative to 'bro lights?
I don't really see the problem with alcohol sponsorship (though it's bound to be the next in line for a ban).
Sure, booze and driving don't mix, but nor do Mobile phones and driving, let alone using the products of a notable sponsor of Surtees!

As for the ciggie sponsorship, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you by the very suggestion that there might just be slightly different rules for Ferrari!

[ensign14]

Ferrari should run a car in plain red with a health warning on it. Nobody could complain then.

[Rinehart]

Originally posted by ensign14
Ferrari should run a car in plain red with a health warning on it. Nobody could complain then.

I would say that Shell's products are far worse for mankind than those of Philip Morris...

[tidytracks]

Bring back tobacco ads, I say. At a time when the sport is struggling for sponsors, bring back the fags. Great liveries and big bucks.

At a time of economic slowdown, I'm not being funny but fags and booze will still sell well,if not better than before.

If we can have Johnny Walker, why not Johnny Player Special? Out goes Lucky Strike, and 2 years and no sponsors later, bye bye Honda.

As it's been suggested already in this thread, I'm not going to buy a Panasonic TV just because it's on the Toyota, and I'm not going to buy a Philishave because its on the Williams. I'm not going to start drinking Red Bull Cola instead of Coke because its on the Red Bull and I'm not going to bank with ING because its on the Renault.

Why I should smoke a brand of cigarettes for those same reasons is beyond me. Since when was the individual liberty of free and informed choice such a bad thing?

[AlexS]

Sad so many people against freedom

What a bunch of "pussies" you are and how vulnerable your kids you'll be if they can't deal with a couple sponsors. They would be childish and teenagers forever that is what you are building.
Btw why don't you stop politics. It is the biggest killer
of XX Century.

I love Martini Racing cars, as a kid were my favorites. That didn't made me a drunk nor my friends.

John Player Special Lotus, that didn't make me a smoker.

In words of Clint Eastwood

"We live in more of a pussy generation now," Clint Eastwood tells Esquire upon the release of his new film Gran Torino. "Everybody's become used to saying, 'Well, how do we handle it psychologically?' " Eastwood, who grew up having to duke it out with bullies, looks back to a more stoic time: "My father had a couple of kids at the beginning of the Depression. There was not much employment. Not much welfare. People barely got by. People were tougher then."(...)


http://www.newser.co...tion-pussy.html

[pikamoku]

Originally posted by Nobody


I also think it a bit stupid to have alcohol sponsorship on race cars as well.

[Nobody]

Originally posted by tidytracks
Bring back tobacco ads, I say. At a time when the sport is struggling for sponsors, bring back the fags. Great liveries and big bucks.

At a time of economic slowdown, I'm not being funny but fags and booze will still sell well,if not better than before.

If we can have Johnny Walker, why not Johnny Player Special? Out goes Lucky Strike, and 2 years and no sponsors later, bye bye Honda.

As it's been suggested already in this thread, I'm not going to buy a Panasonic TV just because it's on the Toyota, and I'm not going to buy a Philishave because its on the Williams. I'm not going to start drinking Red Bull Cola instead of Coke because its on the Red Bull and I'm not going to bank with ING because its on the Renault.

Why I should smoke a brand of cigarettes for those same reasons is beyond me. Since when was the individual liberty of free and informed choice such a bad thing?

Maybe it's just me but I do prefer to fill up at Mobil than at Shell, for no other reason than...
(Maybe I'm subconsciously trying to make up for the Phillip Morris smokes)

Back to the point though, it does have some influence, definetly, that is the whole point of it.

An F1 viewer is more likely to buy a Panasonic TV than a TEAC or LG (who are not in the sport), and a Toyota F1 fan might just buy a Panasonic TV over a Sony or Phillips (main competitors & brand heavyweights).

If advertising didn't have an influence on culture and it's habits, we wouldn't be flooded with it.

[Zoony]

Originally posted by Rinehart
The rules and ATAL law do not cover (1) Team ownership/sponsorship (2) Team investment (3) Advertising and marketing opportunities away from F1 official events

Perfectly legit.

Please refer to Section 10, Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, 2002:-

10. Prohibition of sponsorship

(1) A person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence if the purpose or effect of anything done as a result of the agreement is to promote a tobacco product in the United Kingdom.

(2) A sponsorship agreement is an agreement under which, in the course of a business, a party to it makes a contribution towards something, whether the contribution is in money or takes any other form (for example, the provision of services or of contributions in kind).

[Note- No mention of branding at all; merely accepting support of some kind is all it takes to commit an offence in the UK.]

The full act can be found here:- http://www.opsi.gov....a_20020036_en_1

There is probably no question of the Ferrari sponsorship being anything other than 'legit' in Italy, but it would not be 'legit' if, say McLaren, or any other UK-based team were to accept sponsorship from a tobacco company. That is my point:- Some teams are subject to different laws than others.

The F1 Championship is an International one, and I am confident that as long as the FIA made it clear that any directive by them banning tobacco sponsorship was being imposed to 'make the championship fair for all participants, regardless of nationality', they would have no problem with the aforementioned lawyers. Arguably, by failing to do so they are promoting an unfair championship, which no doubt ought to have another set of lawyers on their back. In any event, they won't know until they try it. They just do not seem to want to try it.

[alfa1]

Originally posted by Rinehart
Ferrari are 'carrying on with tobacco sponsorship' because its perfectly legal.

The rule is that cars cannot run in most countries now anyway with tobacco BRANDING on...

A bit more google searching, and the EU law in question appears to be
Directive 2003/33/EC

The claim that BRANDING has anything at all to do with the laws is false.
A reading of the law shows that ADVERTISING and SPONSORSHIP are the only matters.

Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "tobacco products" means all products intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed inasmuch as they are made, even partly, of tobacco;
(b) "advertising" means any form of commercial communications with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting a tobacco product;
© "sponsorship" means any form of public or private contribution to any event, activity or individual with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting a tobacco product;


To my mind, Ferrari's deal with Philip Morris is certainly in contravention of (b) and ©. The Barcode is certainly advertising, even if it is not a formal trademark or 'direct'.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Josta


I have yet to see proof that McDonalds adverts convert vegetarians to eat meat.

Or for that matter meat eaters to eat whatever that crap is between the bread.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Nobody

Maybe it's just me but I do prefer to fill up at Mobil than at Shell, for no other reason than...
(Maybe I'm subconsciously trying to make up for the Phillip Morris smokes)

I tend to use the Shell Power V or whatever it's called, not because of advertising or sponsorship but because I get about 50 miles per tank more from it...

[carbonfibre]

Same here but mostly because my Ducati does run smoother with it instead of the regular unleaded euro 95.

[simpson]

The whole point of cigarette advertising is to promote the idea that you can take chances and beat the odds.

So, sure, your dad or a friend of a friend’s mother got heart problems, lung problems, emphysema, circulatory problems and died a horrible death, but not 100% of smokers do. You’ll beat the odds, just like the cool people taking part in this dangerous cool activity do (mostly, any way, up until the early 80s, but car racing is still regarded as a dangerous sport).

This is the kind of thing that encourages teenagers to ignore the warnings and take up the rather dirty and disgusting life-long addiction.

[Lazy Prodigy]

Originally posted by simpson
The whole point of cigarette advertising is to promote the idea that you can take chances and beat the odds.
This is the kind of thing that encourages teenagers to ignore the warnings and take up the rather dirty and disgusting life-long addiction.

Then its ignorance?

[tifosi]

Originally posted by ensign14

I tend to use the Shell Power V or whatever it's called, not because of advertising or sponsorship but because I get about 50 miles per tank more from it...

Does WaWa sponsor anyone??

[simpson]

Originally posted by Lazy Prodigy
Then its ignorance?

Not sure what you're referring to, but it's called persuasion, as that's the point of advertising, or brainwashing, if you want to be cynical.

[stevewf1]

So what is sponsorship exactly?

Is it still sponsorship if a tobacco company wants to pump money into a race team without any logos, advertising or any kind of public recognition of said money?

[Poltergeistes]

I think the only problem in question when it comes to smoking and F1 is of course who is their target? you perceive things in a very different way when you are 10 years old and when you are 20 or 30... For example when i was a kid watching piquet, senna... i would always wonder hmmm what the hell is agip? and more importantly why does that dog has six legs? and that intrigued me, i asked what was marlboro? what was rothmans? when you are 10 years old, and you see your idol wearing a shirt and a cap that always says this one thing it sells you, when you are 20 not so much.

So in countries where you have older audience to me it's alright to have any sponsors logo and name, but if it's a country or place where you have alot of very young crowds not so much, as far as the barcode thing on the ferrari car and logo, that might have been the "ace" of smoking advertising in this new age when they are always looking to ban such advertisements, i remember not knowing what the hell the barcode was, at first i tried to read it, i thought damnit i need glasses, maybe it's in arab, maybe its hebrew and it's backwards, but then now you have internet, and that magic box where anything you type in, you will always find out.

The barcode is worse than spelling out MARLBORO, when i read marlboro on the ferrari car at least i knew what the it was, when they used the barcode i had to look the damn thing up. When mclaren would simply write david or kimi instead of west, i used to think damn coulthard has so much money he can sponsor himself!

In the end it's undeniable the influence that smoke brands have had in motorracing and it's fans for decades and decades, theres no other so called sport that i can really put a logo on, but on racing i can always immediatly associate with tabacco cos (not saying that makes you start smoking or not) but a racing team at many times were like ferrari is now, it's a co-existing relationship in every level.