48 replies to this topic

[simonf]

Hi

Hope this is an appropriate post...

I'm working on an education project for the NHS - specifically on issues around lung cancer and smoking.

I am hoping that someone might be able to donate some photos of Formula One cars - it's for a training pack on Lung Cancer and the strategies that might be adopted to dissuade people from smoking. One issue is around restricting advertising and I thought that a good way to illustrate this would be to show F1 cars pre/post the banning of tobacco advertising - so no more Marlboro Maclaren/Ferrari, Benson & Hedges Jordan etc. etc.

Ideally I'd like a couple of 'before and after' pictures if possible.

Whilst I'm afraid there's no money on offer, we will of course acknowledge ownership - the materials will end up in NHS-funded materials to be distributed without charge to UK-based health practitioners so it's a good cause...

Please feel free to get in touch with me directly: simon.fitzpatrick@e-lfh.org.uk

Hope you can help

best rgd

simonf

PS On another issue I'd be esp. glad to hear from anyone with pix of Cooper Racing Hesketh 308s form 1978 Aurora AFX..!

best rgds

[alansart]

The Donington Collection has Gold Leaf & JPS Lotus's plus a display of Marlboro McLarens.

I've heard a rumour that if and when the cars are refurbished the "Marlboro" will be left off the McLarens.

[RS2000]

I'm not sure it is an appropriate post. I would have thought few here would trust senior NHS spin doctors not to make such "education" detrimental to the sport in some way or other.
I have never smoked and exposure to tobacco advertising in motorsport never affected me in any way - other than to deprecate the large sums of money on offer at the top. I would have to admit that I have benefitted on the continent long ago from "start money" etc that probably would not have been around if the event organisers had not had funding pressed on them in the "tobacco wars".
So no, sorry, after 30 years in one of the major spending Government Departments, I don't trust those in control now.

Edited by RS2000, 12 November 2009 - 16:15.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Simon I can't imagine you'll be able to get any images for free. Even 'copyright free' images usually have clauses forbidding their useage in advertise or other campaigns, they are almost always exclusively for editorial use only.


In the interest of fairness since the tobacco companies were allowed to advertise and we willingly contributed to it, equally anti-smoking groups should be able to have their say too.

Which is why I always thought as long as it was a legal product, so should be the advertising. And just from a branding argument, it's more about market share. Very little advertising actually increases the market but plays to a pre-existing demand. Hell, it's in the tobacco company's best interest to make sure you stay alive and using their products for as long as possible!


Yours sincerely, a former tobacco marketing consultant

[bradbury west]

Other than in photos for personal use, I understood that there was an "issue" with copyright on brand logos.
Roger Lund

[Rob]

Well we got rid of the tobacco companies and then Johnnie Walker came in.

So if we were persuaded to start smoking from the tobacco companies, we're now all drink drivers

[Stephen W]

I'm not sure it is an appropriate post. I would have thought few here would trust senior NHS spin doctors not to make such "education" detrimental to the sport in some way or other.
I have never smoked and exposure to tobacco advertising in motorsport never affected me in any way - other than to deprecate the large sums of money on offer at the top. I would have to admit that I have benefitted on the continent long ago from "start money" etc that probably would not have been around if the event organisers had not had funding pressed on them in the "tobacco wars".
So no, sorry, after 30 years in one of the major spending Government Departments, I don't trust those in control now.

Agreed!

Well we got rid of the tobacco companies and then Johnnie Walker came in.

So if we were persuaded to start smoking from the tobacco companies, we're now all drink drivers

Oh and the population would not have expanded as it did if the Durex ads had any affect.

[alansart]

Oh and the population would not have expanded as it did if the Durex ads had any affect.

It didn't help that the first time Richard Scott tested the Durex Lola it picked up a puncture

[Stephen W]

It didn't help that the first time Richard Scott tested the Durex Lola it picked up a puncture

I remember the Durex Lola's first appearance at Oulton Park. As it wombled to the end of the pit lane Scott stopped as he got the Red Light, when it went Green he gave it a bootful of throttle and spun the rears. At this point the commentator said "There goes the Durex Lola burning rubber!". This was followed by bout of giggling from the other occupants of the commentary box!

Edited by Stephen W, 12 November 2009 - 19:19.

[lanciaman]

The Donington Collection has Gold Leaf & JPS Lotus's plus a display of Marlboro McLarens.

I've heard a rumour that if and when the cars are refurbished the "Marlboro" will be left off the McLarens.

Then they should remove "Fiat" and "Goodyear" and "Budweiser" and any other product name that has fallen short or disappointed or dear me, been bad for someone.

The blasted PC folks and their anti tobacco zeal have done enough damage by running off some first rate sponsors. Now they want to meddle with history and tamper with the facts!?

I confess to being a former smoker and I too, was engaged in tobacco marketing. But sod the nannys that want to reduce our choices to the level of picking brands of asparagus.

[Leigh Trevail]

Has anyone here actually taken up smoking as a result of sponsorship of a car by a tobacco company?

[D-Type]

Going back to the original question, I think you need to have pictures of, for example, cars with Marlboro or JPS livery but with and without the name reflecting development of the anti-tobacco advertising campaign. You could also feature pictures of models that are not allowed to be sold with the cigarette name.

Writing as an ex smoker, I don't believe cigarette advertising ever induced anyone to start smoking but I do think they advertising affected the choice of brand - at different times I smoked Gold Leaf, JPS and Silk Cut but not Marlboro as I didn't like the US ' toasted' tobacco. Likewise I filled my car with Elf because of the Tyrrell connection. But my car doesn't have Goodyear or Bridgestone tyres, it has the cheapest I could find; had they been at the same price I would have gone for a racing-assciated brand.

You could draw an analogue with Airfix-type models of WW2 aircraft that are not allowed to be sold with swastika decals. Historical accuracy being distorted in case some neo Nazi pinches his kid brother's decals to put on his ..... what? Maybe his jackboots or his 'paki-bashing' baseball bat. Again the swastika decals won't turn anybody into an extremist any more than red stars will make them into communists.

Edited by D-Type, 18 November 2011 - 13:15.

[bradbury west]

Durex Lola's first appearance at Oulton Park.

What year was that SW? I recall Surtees with his car, possibly early 70s. Or am I having just another c. r. a. f. t. moment?
Roger Lund

[alansart]

What year was that SW? I recall Surtees with his car, possibly early 70s. Or am I having just another c. r. a. f. t. moment?
Roger Lund

1975 for Scott's F5000. The F1 Surtees came later.

[RA Historian]

Duncan is absoluely right.

I am not aware of hordes of people dashing out of the circuit or from their TV sets, down to the local shop so that they could buy some cigarettes and take up a habit that they had never thought of doing before. The whole issue of banning cigarette advertising is political correctness run amok. People took up smoking because of peer pressure or because of family history. Advetising merely helped them select a brand.

Now we have model makers and museums deleting cigarette logos etc from their cars. The rewriting of history, dictated by the nanny state, to protect us from ourselves.

Political correctness is the scourge and antithesis of rational thought.

Tom

[Ray Bell]

Simon (and others)...

Get yourself a copy of Larry C White's book, The Smoking Business.

[lanciaman]

Simon (and others)...

Get yourself a copy of Larry C White's book, The Smoking Business.

Ray,

I googled the book but found nothing.... More info?

My wife was ad manager for two major national cigarette brands, overseeing the launch of what became the most successful new cigarette brand in America (Camel Lights). Keeping in mind that a single share point was worth in excess of $100 million back in the lazte 1970s, large money was spent on advertising these products. (I consulted for some brands, mainly for motorsport associations.)

Whether or not cig advertising actually drove anyone to smoke is still debated. The brands did, though, pursue young consumers, particularly post high school males. Remember the ubiquitous little sample packs of 4 (?) handed out at sports events and concerts?

To smoke or not to smoke has become a polarizing issue. The reduction in the US smoking public has less to do with "education" than with becoming thought of as a low class habit. Social stigma has done more to decease smoking than all the cancer scares in the world.

It is patent nonsense for the nannys to be deleting cig logos from historic race cars, real or scale, because they are afraid someone will swoon with the desire to smoke upon seeing a Marlboro sticker. History shouldn't be screwed with.

And as for "tobacco education," it has in my opinion contributed to the outbreak of heroin addiction and overdose deaths here in middle earth.

The nannys say without distinction that tobacco, alcohol and drugs are the three great evils that youngsters should avoid. Yet, the youngsters see their parents enjoying a beer and a smoke, without any lasting effects, and reason, in their undeveloped brains, that drugs, which are in the same "evil" category, must not have lasting effects either. And as heroin is the cheapest street drug available right now, and easier to get than either booze or even cigarettes-- cheaper, too-- they take the white line. With sadly lasting effects.

The nanny lobby needs to focus less on the overstated evils of tobacco, and with proportionate zeal acknowledge that drugs, especially heroin, ARE NOT in the same league as cigarettes and beer.

But the tobacco settlement, which many US states on to keep the lights on, requires that tobacco cessation be preached, and since that preaching is well rewarded, cigarettes will continue being demonized more heartily than drugs.

[Tim Murray]

I googled the book but found nothing.... More info?

There's a copy in the National Library of Australia ...

http://catalogue.nla...u/Record/170672

I'm guessing that this book is a retitled version:

http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0688067069

[simonlewisbooks]

I started watching motor racing aged 3 months in 1967 and from the age of one I have been exposed to cigarette logos on racing cars virtually every day of my life - and still am - from the Gold Leaf Lotus 49 stickers on my J40 pedal car and JPS Lotus 72 posters on my wall to the Embassy Shadow Dinky Toy I used to push across the kitchen floor , the Marlboro McLaren patches on my jacket and the Gitanes Ligier on the front of Autosport..... not to mention those leggy JPS girls at Silverstone in the 70s ...... 41 years of continuous heavy duty tobacco sponsorship before my eyes....

AND I'VE NEVER SMOKED A CIGARETTE.

So much for the power of advertising.

(JPS...best racing car livery ever. Never cared what it actually advertised, just loved the colour scheme !)

[lanciaman]

There's a copy in the National Library of Australia ...

http://catalogue.nla...u/Record/170672

I'm guessing that this book is a retitled version:

http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0688067069

Thanks, Tim. I linked to a review.

Here's what get my knickers in a knot:

"Approximately 350,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer, heart ailments or emphysema directly attributable to smoking, notes White (Human Debris). "

Who says?

I know from personal experience that virtually anyone perishing from heart or lung disease is chalked off as a tobacco fatality, even though the precipitate cause was something else entirely. The cancer lobby has got great influence, and money, and it acts in self interest to come up with the 350,000 casualties number: the more deaths can be attributed to this specific cause, the more money will roll into the 501 © 3 that acts on its behalf.

The numbers are bent. The causes are bent. Americans die of red meat, drink, bad driving, stress, old age- yet the cause of death is often attributed to smoking, even if the poor devil stopped smoking 30 years before his demise.

[Ray Bell]

Yeah, I was a bit incensed at that opening to the description of the book too...

What is revealed in the book is way more informative than that. It looks into the corrupt way the tobacco industry has worked to entrench itself in (particularly US) society, how it's genetically modified tobacco plants to make the stuff more addictive, how it's found methods to bury information about medical issues and how it's generally so uncaring about its buyers and determined to expand its market that no moral sense is shown.

Read the chapter about the kid and the chewing tobacco and you'll find yourself changing your mind somewhat.

[Tim Murray]

... not to mention those leggy JPS girls

I smoked the occasional cigarette in my teens because it was the cool thing to do when out and about. The last time I ever smoked was at the bitterly cold 1975 Race of Champions at Brands. It had snowed overnight as we camped, so the next morning I accepted a free cigarette from a very nice JPS girl, not just for the chance to have (social) intercourse with an attractive woman, but because I was so cold I was desperate for any source of heat, however insignificant.

[Spitfire]

Make no mistake, my point is not to defend the "Nanny State" mentality that pervades so much of the world, yet. . .

I find it inconceivable that intelligent people don't think cigarette advertising in motorsports doesn't work.

Do you really think that the industry has poured millions upon billions of dollars into the sport for decades while just 'guessing' that it creates new customers, or brand loyalty? I think not.


Back to the original point of the thread. Lotus would obviously be the best candidate for images of pre-advertising / Gold Leaf & JPS era / and finally the comically disguised CAMEL livery that proved to be the writing on the wall for the eventual outright ban. (although the Scuderia Ferrari Marlb@*%! seems to have found a way to sneak between the tightening grip of The Great Nanny.)

[Ray Bell]

To some degree, you'll find that the profits in cigarette sales are such that enormous revenues can be tapped for promotion...

This was heightened when TV advertising of cigarettes was banned, then magazine advertising went and still sporting and arts sponsorships were allowed.

The insidious part of the sporting and arts event sponsorships was that it allowed the names to be dropped in places where direct advertising wasn't allowed, and that includes third world countries where the cigarette makers went to chase increasing markets as more advanced countries started to see a decline for them.

But cigarette companies were pursuing these methods before any bans came to light. Ignoring the fact that I was told in 1950 that cigarettes cause lung cancer, that information was widespread in the late fifties (Jack Davey's death from lung cancer was mentioned in newspapers at the time who linked it to him be a '100 a day man') and a source of serious discussion in the early sixties.

In the very early sixties Geoff Sykes was approached by W D & H O Wills with a view to them sponsoring the Warwick Farm International 100. The deal was virtually in place until Geoff realised that they wanted what we today call 'naming rights' to the event... rather than '...sponsored by Craven A or whatever'... and he knocked them back.

I don't recall now, but they were looking at buying that race for some paltry amount too. Sure, it would have helped out with finances, but it was only something like the starting money paid for one of the international drivers.

[Lee Nicolle]

As a reformed sometime light smoker I know that cigarettes are not good for your health, as is a lot of other products that are advertised for sale.
As for the nanny state banning advertising it is somewhat dubious the benefits. If it is legal to be sold it should be legal to be advertised. Maybe not in childrens peak viewing on TV but to ban advertising at sporting events etc is really hypocrisy as governments take huge taxes and do not put them back into education against not so healthy products.And have not replaced the money in any way to any sport.
And junk food adds are still on prime time TV so say no more.
As for the PC correct crowd banning adds on museum pieces, Please get a life and do not alter history.
A few years ago at Bathhurst all the Brock Marlboro cars were displayed sans adds, it looked bloody stupid and was not historically correct.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Lee Nicolle
.....to ban advertising at sporting events etc is really hypocrisy as governments take huge taxes and do not put them back into education against not so healthy products.And have not replaced the money in any way to any sport.....

Not quite so, Lee...

Remember the Victoria State Government funding motor sporting (and other events) which opted to run their 'Quite' (or whatever it was) campaign advertising instead of smokes? Sandown did it, for one.

[b].....And junk food adds are still on prime time TV so say no more.....[b]

But they are food...

They are not purely a drug used for recreational purposes as tobacco is. Likewise alcohol, it also has a food component.

Regarding the taxes, I have no idea if it's right or wrong, but it has frequently been said that tax on tobacco is less than the public health cost of the stuff.

[Lee Nicolle]

Not quite so, Lee...

Remember the Victoria State Government funding motor sporting (and other events) which opted to run their 'Quite' (or whatever it was) campaign advertising instead of smokes? Sandown did it, for one.



But they are food...

They are not purely a drug used for recreational purposes as tobacco is. Likewise alcohol, it also has a food component.

Regarding the taxes, I have no idea if it's right or wrong, but it has frequently been said that tax on tobacco is less than the public health cost of the stuff.

They did that for about 1 year, since then the taxes go to general revenue both state and federally.And more people are probably dieing these days from poor nutrition and unhealthy lifestyle than a moderate otherwise healthy smoker. And I am not condoning smoking one bit and within reason believe that most education, and even the warnings on the packets are more usefull than banning advertising of a legal product.
Reputedly Bob Jane banned cigarette advertising at his tracks, and look what happened to them! But if that is his belief all power to him but it cost him a lot financially.
Lets face it smoking kills, junkfood kills [and is very addictive] booze kills sometimes even in moderation, cars kill, mobile phones kill [or so we are lead to believe] so it is a little hypocritical to ban one and not the others.

[Stephen W]

1975 for Scott's F5000. The F1 Surtees came later.

Thanks Alan, I'm a bit behind the times today.

Edited by Stephen W, 13 November 2009 - 12:09.

[Stephen W]

... at different times I smoked Gold Leaf, JPS and Silk cut but not Marlboro as I didn't like the US ' toasted' tobacco.

I remember at the Belgian GP in '72 the rather pretty Marlboro girls were handing out stickers and cigarettes. I didn't smoke so managed to blag a handful of stickers. Some of the guys I was with (Page & Moy Tour) did smoke and immediately lit-up. They nearly all had coughing fits at the rather harsh US brand.

As for which sponsors to feature GOLD LEAF must be top of the list as the instigators of tobacco sponsorship in F1 and Europe.

[RTH]

I suspect brand owners in the main delude themselves that the extent putting their name on the side of a racing car brings them a real measurable increase in business.
Often as not it is more about an excuse to entertain guests, staff and suppliers/customers with food & drink at the venue and an ego trip for people near the top of the company and a diversion from the tedium of normal business life. Much of the money spent I suspect is wasted or at best not cost effective in comparison to other direct forms of advertising.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Depends on how you do it. Just putting ING on the side of a Renault won't put people through the front doors. Although I was generally unaware of them pre-F1, so it served it's purpose for brand awareness and arguably brand image as I figured "Well, they must be serious if they can do F1".

Racing sponsorship is a media buy, effectively. It's just the first step in selling to the customer, get their attention.

[Rob]

As for which sponsors to feature GOLD LEAF must be top of the list as the instigators of tobacco sponsorship in F1 and Europe.

In F1, it was Gunston who were responsible

[lanciaman]

Do you really think that the industry has poured millions upon billions of dollars into the sport for decades while just 'guessing' that it creates new customers, or brand loyalty? I think not.

They might. Once upon a time.

Marlboro had a short-lived presence in the USAC Championship Trail in the early 1970s (late 1960s?). In and out in a little over a year, as I recall. Highly visible one season, gone the next. I knew one of the key promotional players in this, an exec with Flair Promotions. I asked what happened to cause such an early exit. He explained, "Everybody at Marlboro went to races, got jackets and hats, the agencies did ads and had a good time and hospitality was enjoyed. At the end of the season, somebody at the Home Office asked, how many boxes did we sell as a result of the racing enterprise? And nobody knew. They weren't tracking direct incremental sales increases due to racing. And the plug was pulled."

Brands have gotten a lot smarter in the ensuing years...as sponsorships got a lot more expensive

[lanciaman]

I suspect brand owners in the main delude themselves that the extent putting their name on the side of a racing car brings them a real measurable increase in business.

If a sponsor's promotional efforts are limited to putting the brand name on the car and renting a hospitality suite or tent, they are missing 2/3rds of the opportunity. Maximizing the sponsorship can involve custom localized advertising, retail coop activities, PR tie ins between the sponsor products and consumer non-racing usage, building brand awareness outside the racetrack, product sampling or trial through special offers, etc. That's why, though the exact ratio may vary according to the kind of racing, a sponsor should spend two to five times on promotional support including hospitality, what he gives the racing team.

As an example, when the US Army sponsored drag racing superstar Don Prudhomme, when he appeared at a racetrack the local Army recruiting command lent full manpower support to having a strong, visible presence at the track. Plus supporting buildup to the event. This sponsorship was an extremely successful endeavor, helping the new volunteer Army meet its recruiting goals. But it depended on close cooperation between the Prudhomme team, local Army recruiters, and the ad agency's 72-man field force which provided on site professional counsel and support.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Lee Nicolle
They did that for about 1 year, since then the taxes go to general revenue both state and federally. And more people are probably dying these days from poor nutrition and unhealthy lifestyle than a moderate otherwise healthy smoker.....

It'll be a long time before you convince me of that, I can tell you...

The Victorian campaign lasted more than a year, I'm sure. As for the 'poor nutrition and unhealthy lifestyle' comment, I really don't see the relevance. There is more than ample evidence of a substantive kind to tell us that damage is done to your body whilever you smoke. And that the damage remains with you.

.....Reputedly Bob Jane banned cigarette advertising at his tracks, and look what happened to them! But if that is his belief all power to him but it cost him a lot financially.....

Bob's issues go way beyond that...

He chose to take up legal cases with CAMS, this meant he lost any chance of getting the ATCC at his circuit, this means he lost a lot of kudos in the racing world. He chose to not have anything to do with CAMS and that led to an all-out campaign by the CAMS to denigrate him and his circuit.

.....Lets face it smoking kills, junkfood kills [and is very addictive] booze kills sometimes even in moderation, cars kill, mobile phones kill [or so we are lead to believe] so it is a little hypocritical to ban one and not the others.

Junkfood might kill... but only if it's misused.

Booze will kill... if it's misused.

Mobile phones don't hurt anyone or anything, even if misused.

Cars can kill... if they're misused.

Tobacco kills, not when misused, but when used.

[RTH]

Depends on how you do it. Just putting ING on the side of a Renault won't put people through the front doors. Although I was generally unaware of them pre-F1, so it served it's purpose for brand awareness and arguably brand image as I figured "Well, they must be serious if they can do F1".

.

You might well have thought seeing RBS on the side of a Williams that if they can do F1 they must be a strong well capitalised bank and as a result purchased their shares.

Edited by RTH, 13 November 2009 - 14:58.

[RA Historian]

Marlboro had a short-lived presence in the USAC Championship Trail in the early 1970s (late 1960s?). In and out in a little over a year, as I recall. Highly visible one season, gone the next. I knew one of the key promotional players in this, an exec with Flair Promotions. I asked what happened to cause such an early exit. He explained, "Everybody at Marlboro went to races, got jackets and hats, the agencies did ads and had a good time and hospitality was enjoyed. At the end of the season, somebody at the Home Office asked, how many boxes did we sell as a result of the racing enterprise? And nobody knew. They weren't tracking direct incremental sales increases due to racing. And the plug was pulled."

Sounds plausible. But the story I heard back then was that USAC, while taking Marlboro's money as the title sponsor of the series, simultaneously allowed Viceroy into the series as sponsor of two of the Vel's Parnelli Jones cars. Marlboro vehemently objected to this, and hit the escape clause button in their contract.

Tom

[Spitfire]

Television.

Bernie understood. (for better or worse.)

[Ross Stonefeld]

You might well have thought seeing RBS on the side of a Williams that if they can do F1 they must be a strong well capitalised bank and as a result purchased their shares.

At the time they were, just like ING were when they entered. If I were running RBS's sports marketing budget I'd keep the trackside advertising deal because as a media buy it is very effective in cost efficiency, and re-assess things like the Six Nations.

[Garagiste]

The idea that the dangers of tobacco only came to light (sorry) relatively recently has always puzzled me:
http://en.wikipedia....aste_to_Tobacco
And yet still people smoke. They just want to - I don't doubt that the public ban has led many to cut down, but there have been stats out recently showing that no more have actually given up than would have before.
This thread is making me lungry, I'm going for an oily.

[RS2000]

At the time they were, just like ING were when they entered. If I were running RBS's sports marketing budget I'd keep the trackside advertising deal because as a media buy it is very effective in cost efficiency, and re-assess things like the Six Nations.

No they weren't - it just wasn't known to the public, although some who had experience of them suspected. Seeing RBS on an F1 car is almost certainly counter productive to their public image now - but they are contractually bound.
ING in the UK became known almost entirely from direct TV advertising. I would suggest that seeing their name on a Renault in F1 had zero effect in the UK. What is currently gaining ING savings deposits (including some of mine - until the bonus expires) in the UK is the Netherlands Government guarantee being Euro100K when the UK Government guarantee for UK competitors is only £50K.

[Geoff E]

http://en.wikipedia....aste_to_Tobacco

That was the same King James who banned English tobacco growing because it was competing with the Virginian industry.

http://www.genuki.or.../Tobacco02.html

[# 0]

Has anyone here actually taken up smoking as a result of sponsorship of a car by a tobacco company?

Yes, me. And because of the Durex Surtees, I took up... well, let's leave it at that!

[Garagiste]

ING in the UK became known almost entirely from direct TV advertising.

Probably correct for the most part, but I suspect the first time they became known to many was when they bought what was left of Barings for £1.

[Ross Stonefeld]

No they weren't - it just wasn't known to the public, although some who had experience of them suspected. Seeing RBS on an F1 car is almost certainly counter productive to their public image now - but they are contractually bound.
ING in the UK became known almost entirely from direct TV advertising. I would suggest that seeing their name on a Renault in F1 had zero effect in the UK. What is currently gaining ING savings deposits (including some of mine - until the bonus expires) in the UK is the Netherlands Government guarantee being Euro100K when the UK Government guarantee for UK competitors is only £50K.

Well it was done as a globally co-ordinated effort, not a UK specific program. They got a 16% bump in worldwide image from the start of the 2007 season until the end of 2008, which isn't bad considering on a multi-nation program you're going to make small gains at best. Santander, which were pretty much non-existant in the UK mind in 2007 went from 20% awareness to 70%. That was on the back of Lewis Hamilton's profile, but that's a great(if rare) example of what you can do with a motorsport sponsorship.

It's daft to think just sticking logos on cars and hoping they'll win will do anything, but nor is it the vanity exercise of burning notes that people tend to think. You can do a hell of a lot more with a motorsport sponsorship than tradition sports, assuming an equal demographic and audience size.

[john t]

Yes, me. And because of the Durex Surtees, I took up... well, let's leave it at that!

Me too! I started 'rolling my own' after i saw the girl painted on Guy Edwards' Hesketh of 1976.....

Edited by john t, 13 November 2009 - 17:37.

[Jones Foyer]

There is a group (of which I am a member) on Flickr called "When tobacco ruled motorsport"- you can contact members to use their images.

Tobacco sponsors in motorsport

[simonf]

Hi

Thanks for the response - some very generous offers of some terrific pictures. Further research confirms what a number of people have suggested around issues of copyright, IPR, 'branding' etc. etc. - a very murky area at best but I will persevere. As and when the project is publishable, and out of simple courtesy, I will update this forum.

I can't comment on the wider 'political' issues that arose from my question - I'm a very small part of a huge machine, but be assured that there are more good guys than bad...

best rgds

simonf

[NPP]

I can't comment on the wider 'political' issues that arose from my question - I'm a very small part of a huge machine, but be assured that there are more good guys than bad...

that may be the dangerous thing. I once left a semi-admin job for a research and teaching one because I had concluded that much of what I was doing simply shouldn't be done at all, whether by good or bad people