12 replies to this topic

[teck]

I have been quite interested in this issue since it was first brought up. Perhaps it is because I am one of Phillip Morris' millions of loyal customers of long standing (where the connection is I do not know).

Anyway, some years back, I argued against banning tobacco advertising. Then I believed that F1 was pretty much a sport for grown-ups given that few kids would actually have the patience to sit through two hours of watching cars go by on TV. And the ban is of course to protect children.

However, I live in Melbourne and have been attending GPs there since its inception. And I have noticed that F1 is increasingly a family thing. Perhaps it is time to rethink my position.

However, I also think that tobacco advertising in F1 will have no noticeable effect on the smoking rates of its younger viewers, nor induce them to pick it up. It seems more to me (and some research reports) that tobacco advertising is more to induce exsiting smokers to switch brands (the companies 'admit' this, but they're pretty slippery things). I can't imagine anyone picking up smoking to 'support' whichever team.

And for many younger viewers, I think F1 is quite strongly about idol worship (mild I hope). Whether their cars run tobacco adverts will have a negligible impact on their choice as compared to the driver actually being a smoker.

Smoking rates among youths stem from sociological factors way outside the realm of F1. Rebellion against authority, broken families etc.

I have no figures on how reliant certain teams are on tobacco sponsorship, but I must admit the Ferraris always look a little strange to me without the huge Marlboro on their rear wing.

I do not approve of banning tobacco advertising on the basis of political correctness alone. The road to hell is after all paved with good intentions.

[CONOSUR]

Originally posted by teck
...And for many younger viewers, I think F1 is quite strongly about idol worship (mild I hope). Whether their cars run tobacco adverts will have a negligible impact on their choice as compared to the driver actually being a smoker...

Bingo:up:

I don't think that advertizing on the cars makes people smoke.

[schumigal]

Originally posted by CONOSUR


Bingo:up:

I don't think that advertizing on the cars makes people smoke.

I dun smoke and it doesn't tempt me to smoke too. It's more of a problem for smokers than non smokers really! But most of my friend who watched f1 that smokes dun change brand just because of the team they support. And most of them smoke Malboro. WOnder why!

[bafilas]

I think everyone should smoke. Marlboros.

[maxie]

The reason for tobacco advertising?

A great excuse for the tobacco companies to drive up the cigarette prices to reap more profits!

[Zeus]

Get the blood money out of the sport, and the sooner, the better.

Adjusting to life in F1 without the tobacco money will be a bitter pill to swallow, but I think the sport will be better without it. Big budgets don't necessarily make for good racing.

[BRG]

The tobacco companies do not pour millions of $$$ into F1 because they love the sport. They do it because it gets loads of TV exposure with young(ish) people with disposable income. All the stuff about advertising not persuading anyone to smoke cannot possibly be true unless the tobacco companies are really stupid.

This is the deal - young kid sees Marlboro on a Ferrari (or whatever) driven by his idol - then he sees the pack of Marlboros on the shelf at the store. It is cool to smoke the same brand that sponsors his idaol, so he does it. And bingo! Another smoker contributing to the Phillip Morris coffers (and to his own coffin... )

The sooner that tobacco money is out of F1, the better. It has distorted the sport by giving some teams far more funding than others and encouraged an escalation of costs that has not been in F1's best interests (but of course Bernie has done very nicely)

[Zeus]

Exactly, if the advertising didn't work, why spend all the money. Not to mention the time invested into designing genitals into the logos, how long did it take to think that one up!!????!!

[RJL]

F1 does not need the eveil tobacco money. Thinking that tobacco sponsorship in F1 is ineffective is rather naive IMO. If you really believe that tobacco advertising in F1 doesn't affect viewers why do you think that the Tobacco companies pay all that money? Are their highly paid (& expert) advertising departments mistaken? I don't think so. The sooner the cancer people leave my favourite sport, the better.

[BlackCat]

I honestly promise, mama, I wont drink Red Bull, never, never again

[BARnone]

Teck:

Putting tobacco company logos on cars, racing suits, helmets, hoardings etc, does not necessarily correspond to increased cigarette sales. The companies are after branding and brand recognition - not necessarily the one to one sales relationship. Have you seen the stats on how big tobacco targets the youth market (especially in developing countries)? These are truly alarming practices.

BARnone.

[teck]

Right, brand recognition, one are I missed out. this thought only just occurred to me, that my argument was essentially targeted at the ban in developed countries. But when it comes to youths in developing countries, it is a totally different story. As I said, in economically developed societies, the factors that drive youths to smoking are mainly environmental ones rather than advertising.

In developing countries, these very environmental factors are very present. lack of employment, ignorance on the harm of cigarette consumption, boredom. Coupled with the fact that youths of many developing countries are highly influeneced by western brands, attitudes and dress. you're right, one can see why the tobacco companies are targeting those markets so aggressively. Smoking rates among men are much higher in developing countries, and there are millions more (young men) waiting to take their first puff. yes, tobacco advertising would work. So in these countries are out to build their brands to reap the market. By the way, the big market I have in mind here is China.

Unfortunately, the bans look likely to apply only in the countries where they are needed least. And where they are most needed, don't look at all likely until the damage has been done. Sadly.

[Viss1]

Is advertising geared toward getting kids to start smoking, or to encourage them to smoke your brand when they decide to start?