117 replies to this topic

[JHSingo]

I wasn't sure if this would be better suited to racing comments or paddock club, but mods please move if you deem necessary.

So it seems that the recently announced Heineken deal has not been well received by some. I was reading this earlier:

Dear Mr Todt, 

Reaction to F1 and its Heineken sponsorship deal 

 

Heineken recently launched their new sponsorship agreements with F1, a five year deal estimated to be worth $150 m. With this new deal, Heineken will place themselves as one of the main sponsors of the sport, with event name and circuit branding, TV commercials and other promotional activities.

 

This is a major concern because alcohol and driving should not be mixed. Alcohol brands are now dominating sponsorships in F1, linking a popular motor sport to one of the major killers on our roads, drink driving.

 

Alcohol marketing has a powerful effect on society, in particular on young people. As you very well know, F1 is a sport heavily sponsored by alcohol producers, even before this new deal. A report on alcohol brand exposure during the F1 Monaco Grand Prix last year showed that there were on average 11 references to alcohol brands per minute – averaging one every five seconds. The promotion of alcohol alongside iconic sporting events reinforces and exaggerates pro-alcohol social norms. The Monaco Grand Prix has a worldwide audience of around 500 million people, and with the new deal in addition to the previous sponsorship agreement, F1 is close to becoming more an event for granting the global exposure of alcohol brands than a sporting event. 

 

We have previously written to you about this concern, and in your response you declare yours and FIA’s commitment to road safety, referring to your work with the ‘Action for Road Safety’ programme, in addition to yourself being a UN Special Envoy for Road Safety. 

 

We would like to remind you that drink driving is one of the key killers on the road. It is therefore worrying that F1 is now bringing the link between alcohol brands and motor sport even closer together. 

 

We would like to request that you take this issue seriously and consider moving away from these sponsorship agreements, as you did with tobacco sponsorship. FIA is not without responsibilities, being the governing body of F1 and also being one of the shareholders in the sport. 

 

Mariann Skar, Secretary General in the European Alcohol Policy Alliance

http://www.motorspor...adverts-782051/

What do you think? Should sponsorship from drinks companies be banned in motorsport?

For me, I find it somewhat ridiculous. Why can you not have alcohol sponsors and still send a strong message of how foolish it is to drink drive? They're hardly glamorising or encouraging drink driving. Plus, I don't think you'd find much evidence to say that just because Heineken has branding around circuits that F1 fans are therefore more likely to drink and drive.

Thoughts?

[Marklar]

We would like to remind you that drink driving is one of the key killers on the road. It is therefore worrying that F1 is now bringing the link between alcohol brands and motor sport even closer together.

With this logic they should ban F1 all together as driving fast is one of the key killers on the road

[Kev00]

For me, I find it somewhat ridiculous. Why can you not have alcohol sponsors and still send a strong message of how foolish it is to drink drive? They're hardly glamorising or encouraging drink driving. Plus, I don't think you'd find much evidence to say that just because Heineken has branding around circuits that F1 fans are therefore more likely to drink and drive.

Agree completely.

[LiftAndCoast]

Anti-alcohol group writes letter to Todt. Big deal.

The world is full of wowsers, it doesn't mean we have to accede to their every demand.

There is no comparison to tobacco. Alcohol is legal, safe (even beneficial) when consumed in moderation, and enjoyed by billions around the globe.

Let's not give these fringe groups more attention than they deserve.

Edited by LiftAndCoast, 14 June 2016 - 10:42.

[Jbleroi]

who the f@€&ck is mariann skar.... and wtf is the european alchohol policy aliance..

[Takis1]

Looking at the voting till now,not quite sure the NO button is needed....
I could always be wrong...

[Burtros]

Cant even believe one person has voted to ban it! The letter is a hysterical over reaction, but honestly is scary how much power these do gooder muppets have so it needs to be taken seriously. Nanny state and all that.

[jannyg]

Yes, I think cigarette sponsorship should be allowed as well

[FredrikB]

who the f@€&ck is mariann skar.... and wtf is the european alchohol policy aliance..

 

Its this nice old lady that is basically telling Bernie to get rid of alcohol sponsorship or we make sure that the EU will ban it. As they did with tobacco.

Not sure what influence they ( http://www.eurocare.org/ ) have on the european union though.

 

Edited by FredrikB, 14 June 2016 - 10:38.

[7MGTEsup]

Yes, I think cigarette sponsorship should be allowed as well

 

I agree as that is a perfectly legal product to buy too.

[JeePee]

Mariann Skar is a bit slow. This was known some time already right? And I guess she missed the slogans Heineken put out ("If you drive, never drink")

 

But, looking at here picture, you can tell she must be very fun at party's.

Edited by JeePee, 14 June 2016 - 10:45.

[Grayson]

 

 

Why can you not have alcohol sponsors and still send a strong message of how foolish it is to drink drive? They're hardly glamorising or encouraging drink driving.

 

I agree, and I think that this is the important point.

 

I definitely associate motorsport with drinking as a spectator. I watch most F1 races in a bar. When I'm at a Grand Prix, I'll definitely have a few drinks during the race. But this has nothing to do with drink driving - I'd never have a drink if I was driving to/from the bar or the race.

 

Drinking and watching motorsport shouldn't be associated with drinking and driving. Hopefully all of the "drink responsibly" messaging around the sport can reiterate that.

 

Yes, I think cigarette sponsorship should be allowed as well

 

That seems to me to be a very different conversation as the cigarette advertising ban wasn't specific to F1. Tobacco advertising was banned in its entirety, so that included F1. If alcohol advertising is banned in its entirety then of course this will effect F1 as well, but that's a separate question to whether motorsport should be specifically targeted for a ban.

[TimRTC]

Funny they never complained about Martini sponsoring Williams, or do they think that it is only the working class beer drinkers who have the problem and that posh vermouth drinkers are much smarter and not going to cause a problem?

[KWSN - DSM]

Any legal product should be allowed to advertise on cars and on track boarding.

 

[Ross Stonefeld]

With this logic they should ban F1 all together as driving fast is one of the key killers on the road

 

Personally I think it's unacceptable when professionally licensed racing drivers show up at/promote/take part in/whatever things like the Gumball Rally. And that was before this whole FIA Road Safety Thing. 

[Ruusperi]

Not at all. By analogue, F1 teams shouldn't have mobile phone companies or apps as sponsors or have at least slogan "while driving, never use".

 

Personally I see no reason to restrict advertising or sponsorship in any way. If, for example, Renault wants to have a text "Drink 6 liters of water", and then someone dies from water intoxication, it's just the stupidity of the person. After banning tobacco sponsorship F1 has never been the same. I still miss those glorious years.

[Jon83]

Its this nice old lady that is basically telling Bernie to get rid of alcohol sponsorship or we make sure that the EU will ban it. As they did with tobacco.

Not sure what influence they ( http://www.eurocare.org/ ) have on the european union though.

 

 

She looks and sounds like a hoot!

[Ross Stonefeld]

Not at all. By analogue, F1 teams shouldn't have mobile phone companies or apps as sponsors or have at least slogan "while driving, never use".

 

Personally I see no reason to restrict advertising or sponsorship in any way. If, for example, Renault wants to have a text "Drink 6 liters of water", and then someone dies from water intoxication, it's just the stupidity of the person. After banning tobacco sponsorship F1 has never been the same. I still miss those glorious years.

 

There are lots of advertising restrictions to prevent lies, fraud, unsafe practices, etc. You really *dont* want to live in a libertarian utopia. 

[skicrack]

I actually misread the question so voted "NO". Which isn't what I think. I think there should be the possibility. If we forbid such sponsors, where is gonna be the responsebility of each individual. We live in a world, where to many things are thought out for others already.

[Fastcake]

For me, I find it somewhat ridiculous. Why can you not have alcohol sponsors and still send a strong message of how foolish it is to drink drive? They're hardly glamorising or encouraging drink driving. Plus, I don't think you'd find much evidence to say that just because Heineken has branding around circuits that F1 fans are therefore more likely to drink and drive.

They're not really sending a strong message though, are they? Those don't drink and drive slogans that popped up in Canada were more to cover Heineken's back than anything else, just like how gambling companies* add the "please gamble responsibly" to their adverts. They obviously know there's a potential problem, and many alcohol companies stay away from sponsoring any action sports - apparently Heineken was one of them - so there is a legitimate question here.

*Now there's an industry you've never seen in F1. There's not a big market for gambling on F1, and there would be legal problems in some countries, but I'm surprised there's been nothing.

[DaddyCool]

 

Alcohol marketing has a powerful effect on society, in particular on young people.

 

This sentence alone is 100% proof that this guy has no clue whatsoever why young people drink.

[YoungGun]

This sentence alone is 100% proof that this guy has no clue whatsoever why young people drink.

 

It's a she, next she'll be going after Red Bull and Coca-Cola! 

[Ross Stonefeld]

err, because they think it's cool?

 

 

Apparently Bernie doesn't like gambling/thinks it's downmarket 

[KWSN - DSM]

err, because they think it's cool?

 

 

Apparently Bernie doesn't like gambling/thinks it's downmarket 

 

Down market like in Monte Carlo? Who would have thunk it.

 

[Prost1997T]

There are lots of advertising restrictions to prevent lies, fraud, unsafe practices, etc. You really *dont* want to live in a libertarian utopia. 

 

Hey, not all libertarians are Austrian School\Randian ancaps, you know. Actually, even the fictional Galt's Gulch had an estate tax to pay for common defense (the invisibility shield or whatever it was called).

[klyster]

What's the stuff they quaff at the end of the races?  (except Bahrain and Abu Dhabi) 

Imagine Champagne got banned,  there's no way Kimi would ever make the podium again. 

Anyway, no, don't ban it.

Cigarette sponsorship was a good thing to be rid of though imo. 

Edited by klyster, 14 June 2016 - 13:13.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Down market like in Monte Carlo? Who would have thunk it.

 

 

Casinos are classy though   They don't want Betfair or PartyPoker or whatever. 

[Dr. Austin]

Is this the biggest problem facing the European Union or could they spend their time taking care of more important things?

Edited by Dr. Austin, 14 June 2016 - 13:31.

[Prost1997T]

 

Cigarette sponsorship was a good thing to be rid of though imo. 

 

Smoking was associated with women's lib long before Malboro logos ever appeared on a race car. Eventually most/all other advertising methods were banned, hence tobacco advertising turning to motorsport in a big way.

Edited by Prost1997T, 14 June 2016 - 13:31.

[KWSN - DSM]

Casinos are classy though   They don't want Betfair or PartyPoker or whatever. 

 

No why would should they pursue a billion $ industry?

 

[RekF1]

If it's just track side advertising then it's no big deal. But.....The "drink responsibly" campaign is absolute bollocks. Similar to the "Gamble responsibly" campaign, the biggest profits are made from those who are irresponsible addicts.

[A.Fant]

I'm strongly against a ban and firmly believe that all types of advertising should be allowed, as long as it isn't false advertising or any other type of fraud.

 

Banning certain types of advertising teaches people that they are not responsible for their own actions, which is one of the worst incentives imaginable.

[BalanceUT]

 

I wasn't sure if this would be better suited to racing comments or paddock club, but mods please move if you deem necessary.

So it seems that the recently announced Heineken deal has not been well received by some. I was reading this earlier:
 

http://www.motorspor...adverts-782051/

What do you think? Should sponsorship from drinks companies be banned in motorsport?

For me, I find it somewhat ridiculous. Why can you not have alcohol sponsors and still send a strong message of how foolish it is to drink drive? They're hardly glamorising or encouraging drink driving. Plus, I don't think you'd find much evidence to say that just because Heineken has branding around circuits that F1 fans are therefore more likely to drink and drive.

Thoughts?

 

“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is, I don't know which half.” --John Wanamaker (1838-1922) retail store innovator. 

 

Arguably, we don't know much better today than then. 

 

We know that advertising influences people, but we have a very difficult time pointing to a specific advertisement having a specific effect on behavior.  That's largely because we also know that a person's attitude about a behavior is imperfectly related to their actual behavior related to that attitude. A person's attitude is only crudely influenced by advertising. 

 

Since these ads are only about increasing sales of an already internationally famous brand, the chances of it increasing driving under the influence is quite low, IMO. 

 

​This is different from tobacco in that alcohol, in moderation, has both beneficial and harmful effects on the body. In moderation, it is arguably not worse in its long-term physiological effects as fast food, lack of exercise, etc. Tobacco, on the other hand, is very physiologically harmful in many ways both short term and long term. 

 

For those who drink to excess, this advertising should have no effect. 

 

So, well-meaning woman should focus on the direct incidentals between alcohol use and driving rather than this advertising deal (which apparently includes a healthy dose of 'don't drink and drive' messaging). 

[petef1]

I completely agree with the OP. Having Heineken advertise does not make me want to drink and drive. It makes me want to drink beer, but that's another matter.

 

I remember this ridiculous argument a few years ago when they were opening a Wetherspoons (a British pub chain) at Beaconsfield services and many people were up in arms saying this is going to encourage people to drink and drive.

 

Why would it?

 

There are still plenty of pubs besides our roads from Lands End to John O'Groats, yet our country, town and city pubs don't give me impulsive thoughts of stopping and loading a few pints down me before continuing on my way up the M1. Common Sense, that's all it is.

[D28]

I somewhat question the motive of the protester; is she against alcohol advertising, or against motor racing in general?

If not, certainly there are others who want the sport banned or curtailed based on some green, ecological agenda.

 

I find it absurd that governments might contemplate banning alcohol because of some driving and drinking connection. In N America governments are hugely dependent on alcohol sales for tax revenue and in some provinces the government actually acts as the retailer/wholesaler of the products. That doesn't prevent them from enforcing strict driving laws and campaigns.

 

In Canada tobacco and beer companies have been hugely supportive of motor sport. Players (Imperial Tobacco) sponsored major races for years and also sponsored individual drivers, one reason for the many successful Canadian drivers of the 1990s. When this dried up with the tobacco ban, so did the development programs and the nurturing of young driving talent. This is the problem; sponsorship is not that easy to find, there is not a long list of corporations waiting in the wings to replace alcohol companies.

 

If alcohol like tobacco is banned, it will only encourage protesters to target the next product. Energy drinks? I believe some find them unhealthy for young people, I don't think such an idea would resonate favourably around the paddock today.

[taran]

They're not really sending a strong message though, are they? Those don't drink and drive slogans that popped up in Canada were more to cover Heineken's back than anything else, just like how gambling companies* add the "please gamble responsibly" to their adverts. They obviously know there's a potential problem, and many alcohol companies stay away from sponsoring any action sports - apparently Heineken was one of them - so there is a legitimate question here.

*Now there's an industry you've never seen in F1. There's not a big market for gambling on F1, and there would be legal problems in some countries, but I'm surprised there's been nothing.

 

Hmmm, the Casino in Monaco gets a lot of traction due to its nifty corner. And then there's the Las Vegas grand prix of the early 80's, sponsored by the casinos.

And in the early 2000's, Arrows had Eurobet sponsorship on the car.

Edited by taran, 14 June 2016 - 14:14.

[Takis1]

There is something bothering me though...why did they decide to send this letter after the Heineken deal?
Williams has Martini as sponsor for a while and I did not hear them complaining...am I right to assume they just don't like beer (except the fact that they think they get more money from Bernie for a compromise than from a single team)?

[Ross Stonefeld]

I remember this ridiculous argument a few years ago when they were opening a Wetherspoons (a British pub chain) at Beaconsfield services and many people were up in arms saying this is going to encourage people to drink and drive.

 

Why would it?

 

I don't think it 'encourages' them so much as creates the conditions for them. Sure, alcohol retailers/pubs/what have you will always be near *some* road, but having them at dedicated highway stops is a little odd. 

 

The problem with this thread is it's not about motorsports. The issues of alcohol, advertising, etc, et al are their own issues. At no point in the decision making should someone think "oh, but that would hurt <league whatever>". It's a health and public policy issue. Whether F1 gets money out of it is a secondary effect, not a relevant detail. 

[Grayson]

*Now there's an industry you've never seen in F1. There's not a big market for gambling on F1, and there would be legal problems in some countries, but I'm surprised there's been nothing.

 

Good point. There've been some minor tie ups in the past - I seem to remember Lotus having the name of a rather obscure (in the UK) bookmakers on the side of their car at one point and I think that a few teams have had "betting partners".

 

The amount of betting activity around F1 seems to be increasing and more bookies are accepting bets "in-play" during a race, so I wouldn't be surprised to see more advertising from bookmakers in the next few years...

[A.Fant]

Its this nice old lady that is basically telling Bernie to get rid of alcohol sponsorship or we make sure that the EU will ban it. As they did with tobacco.

Not sure what influence they ( http://www.eurocare.org/ ) have on the european union though.

 

I'm honestly baffled that complaints such as this one is taken seriously, and even more so that they have had actual effect on policy.

 

She is advocating that we treat adults as children who cannot be held responsible for their own actions. If we treat our adult population as children they will start to act as children (on the margin).

 

If you want to get rid of drinking and driving, increase the punishment on the offender - i.e. the idiot who got behind the wheel while drunk. Severe punishment for endangering other people's lives, regardless of whether there was an accident or not, is reasonable.

[Nonesuch]

There is something bothering me though...why did they decide to send this letter after the Heineken deal?

Because it's a big PR moment and jumping on the Google search term 'Heineken F1' is a good idea from their point of view.
 

Williams has Martini as sponsor for a while and I did not hear them complaining...

The 'European Alcohol Policy Alliance' has been complaining about alcohol sponsorship in F1 for years.

They did a minute by minute 'analysis' of the Monaco Grand Prix in 2014, and every year or so they send a letter like this to Todt. Last year he even publicly responded, saying "the FIA has no part at all in the management of the commercial rights of the championship".

Edited by Nonesuch, 14 June 2016 - 15:04.

[Ross Stonefeld]

 

She is advocating that we treat adults as children who cannot be held responsible for their own actions. If we treat our adult population as children they will start to act as children (on the margin).

 

 

At some level the global advertising industry must agree with her...

[TheManAlive]

Totally misread the question. Thought it was should alcohol advertising be banned. As such I am an idiot who voted no. I meant to vote yes.

[nosecone]

Yes, it won't change the amount of beer i'm drinking. It might only change the brand i chose to sponsor

[A.Fant]

At some level the global advertising industry must agree with her...

Of course they do, it serves their interests as a whole.

 

While it isn't appreciated by the companies that are directly hurt by the legislation, it increases the credibility of all non-affected advertisements and makes the customers as a whole less critical of advertising. I.E. if advertising is highly regulated, people will not question the messages that do make it through.

 

It seems like most of the adult population has willingly outsourced their critical thinking to their government these days.

Edited by A.Fant, 14 June 2016 - 15:25.

[Garndell]

Quite frankly this anti alcohol group should be telling F1 where they can get the same level of sponsorship elsewhere instead of moaning about it.  If they can't show a valid alternative they should go back to being inconsequential.  If everyone was more constructive in their criticism the world would be a much saner place.

[Ross Stonefeld]

 

It seems like most of the adult population has willingly outsourced their critical thinking to their government these days.

 

The media and marketing dwarf them for influence. I actually don't mind government attempts to intervene and say "sorry, that's too far/much". We used to have 4 out of 5 Doctors recommend Camels, after all.

 

Quite frankly this anti alcohol group should be telling F1 where they can get the same level of sponsorship elsewhere instead of moaning about it.  If they can't show a valid alternative they should go back to being inconsequential.  If everyone was more constructive in their criticism the world would be a much saner place.

 

But again, that isnt the issue. It's the acceptability of combining alcohol and sponsorship. Individual series/teams will have to make their own decisions(NASCAR only recently permitted 'hard liquor' sponsorships) but policy decisions will have to be what's best for the group at large, not a few teams. 

[kevinracefan]

trick question??

 

everything should be legal.. if people can't handle it and die, that's just natural selection..

[Claudius]

This seems to be the overall mentality in the thread

 

 

[Calorus]

With this logic they should ban F1 all together as driving fast is one of the key killers on the road

 

To be fair many would like to do just that.

Edited by Calorus, 14 June 2016 - 15:55.