263 replies to this topic

[midgrid]

I felt like this could do with its own thread, now that it affects McLaren as well as Ferrari.

 

After a ten-year absence, tobacco companies are reappearing on F1 cars, only in the form of nebulous "post-tobacco" brands rather than actual cigarettes.

 

First Philip Morris International stopped its subliminal barcode/Ferrari-chevron-logo branding, in favour of "Mission Winnow".  Now British American Tobacco have joined forces with McLaren to promote their "A Better Tomorrow" brand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both forms of branding have already caused controversy, with Australian government bodies investigating Mission Winnow ahead of the Grand Prix in Melbourne, and BAT's involvement with McLaren (a new deal, as opposed to PMI's longstanding alliance with Ferrari) attracting questions during the MCL34's launch.

 

Dieter Rencken has summed up the history of tobacco sponsorship in F1 and the current situation.

 

What do people think?  Are these brands cynical, even immoral, and something with which F1 should not be associated, or should the sport embrace the potential revenue stream on offer?

[Nonesuch]

Are these brands cynical, even immoral, and something with which F1 should not be associated, or should the sport embrace the potential revenue stream on offer?

 

No company is full of angels, but it's very disappointing to me that Ferrari continues to associate with PMI.

 

Also; what the heck is up with that floor on the McLaren. F1 truly is the pinnacle of ... carbon fibre shenanigans.

[Sterzo]

Surely the baccy companies haven't been away? Marlboro has been sponsoring Ferrari's drivers throughout, I thought - unless I missed their withdrawal.

 

"Are these brands cynical, even immoral, and something with which F1 should not be associated?" you ask. Oh yes they are. I think before they put money into F1, they should first pay for all the funerals and healthcare associated with their brands.

 

As for F1 involvement, this is a good question, and like many others it leads back to the disastrous financial model the sport has developed. It's like great water wheel, churning through farcical amounts of money, a situation deliberately contrived to enable some to cream off a percentage. Many of F1's problems lead back to this. Quite simply, it should be reversed, difficult as that is. Then, amongst many other benefits of doing that, maybe teams would be able to turn down sponsors marketing death, gambling and even shizz-in-a-tin.

Edited by Sterzo, 15 February 2019 - 15:41.

[PayasYouRace]

Are they tobacco brands though? I don’t see the problem.

[AlexPrime]

I am not against tobacco branding, alcohol branding, sugar branding, etc. I'm a bit libertarian about that.

[SCUDmissile]

It is something conflicting to me as a Ferrari fan. I don't really like it but what can you do.

[ch103]

I am disappointed that Mission Winnow and A Better Tomorrow are allowed back into F1.  

[ConsiderAndGo]

Couldn’t care less.

Don’t see why it’s so wrong to have these kind of sponsors, but alcohol (a far, far more dangerous substance) affiliations are absolutely fine?

Heads gone.

[noikeee]

I have nothing to add other than I agree this is weird and I have no idea how it works. I mean I sort of got it when Marlboro ran the barcode, but I'm not entirely sure where can I buy a "Mission Winnow", and "A Better Tomorrow" just sounds like the tobacco version of the "Earth Dreams" cringe.

[Afterburner]

I don't care if tobacco companies want to blow loads of money sponsoring a race car. I don't think their sponsorship makes as much difference to the health of the public as people think it does.

[CPR]

I have no comment on Ferrari's side but on McLaren's side they've been clear that tobacco products won't be advertised. It's not that companies that sell tobacco products are banned from any form of advertising for any product but that tobacco products are banned from being advertised... as far as I understand it.
 
For example, in the UK:
https://www.asa.org....cigarettes.html
 

Advertising tobacco products to the public is prohibited (rule 21.1) and while the advertising of e-cigarettes is permitted in some media, those ads must contain nothing which promotes any design, imagery or logo that might be associated with a tobacco brand (rule 22.2).

Equally, ads for e-cigarettes must contain nothing which promotes the use of a tobacco product or shows the use of a tobacco product in a positive light (rule 22.3). Marketing communications must also make clear that the product is an e-cigarette and not a tobacco product (rule 22.4).

[Muppetmad]

I never quite know how to feel about this. Clearly tobacco sponsorship occurred because it was effective, but I'm inclined to believe that people make their own decisions on these matters in any case. That's not even to get into the peculiarity of still allowing alcohol sponsorship or even energy drink sponsorship (anybody who has worked with young people knows that energy drinks are very dangerous indeed).

Edited by Muppetmad, 15 February 2019 - 17:28.

[midgrid]

Not to mention chocolate bar sponsorship!

[Nathan]

I think it has created too much virtue signalling than anything. As pointed out, what makes it different from sugar drinks, carbon gasoline, gambling and alcohol?

End if the day, we all make our own choices.

[SCUDmissile]

It kind of reminds me when Renault used to the run the Team Spirit stuff back in 2006.

I had no idea what a 'team spirit' was back then only later did I realise that was Mild Seven tobacco sponsorship.

[dweller23]

I am disappointed that Mission Winnow and A Better Tomorrow are allowed back into F1.  

Please elaborate, I am curious what is the thought process of people who are against it.

 

How many F1 fans dig into articles about F1? How many of them dig deeper to get information about how PMI owns Mission Winnow? Even with that information it took me 4 months to find a slight reference to Marlboro brand in Mission Winnow logo.

 

Obviously, I didn't care for tobacco ads in the first place, I'm far from being a special snowflake that gets offended by everything in the world, so I might be slightly biased.

[mmmcurry]

I keep reading it as mission widow, which considering the parent companies products is apt.

Steve.

[Kalmake]

Not much of a return. Ferrari's never left in the first place. McLaren one is probably very small in comparison.

[ch103]

Please elaborate, I am curious what is the thought process of people who are against it.

 

How many F1 fans dig into articles about F1? How many of them dig deeper to get information about how PMI owns Mission Winnow? Even with that information it took me 4 months to find a slight reference to Marlboro brand in Mission Winnow logo.

 

Obviously, I didn't care for tobacco ads in the first place, I'm far from being a special snowflake that gets offended by everything in the world, so I might be slightly biased.

 

People associate "liking" brands when they support a given team.  Since my Father died from smoking induced lung cancer, I want as few people to go through that experience as possible.  Just a personal thing for me I guess. 

[PlayboyRacer]

No issue whatsoever. They should never have left to begin with. Though PMI never did...

[Spillage]

I'm quite comfortable with it because I don't think tobacco advertising should have been banned in the first place.

[Clatter]

Are they tobacco brands though? I don’t see the problem.

 

Depends on whats in the liquid they are breathing in. Many(most/all?), contain nicotine, and are designed to get you hooked. From what Ive read they can be as, or even more addictive than cigarettes. To me they are still tobacco brands, and thats the way governments are looking at it, which in turn controls how they can be advertised.

Edited by Clatter, 15 February 2019 - 19:26.

[MikeV1987]

I don't care at all, F1 has much bigger issues atm. They aren't even advertising cigarettes.

[PayasYouRace]

Depends on whats in the liquid they are breathing in. Many(most/all?), contain nicotine, and are designed to get you hooked. From what Ive read they can be as, or even more addictive than cigarettes. To me they are still tobacco brands, and thats the way governments are looking at it, which in turn controls how they can be advertised.

So Mission Winnow and A Better Tomorrow are vape liquid brands? If I wanted to buy stuff to fill my vapouriser (or whatever they’re called) I could buy a bottle of Mission Winnow?

My understanding is that they’re sort of non-specific non-product brands.

[Talisman]

So Mission Winnow and A Better Tomorrow are vape liquid brands? If I wanted to buy stuff to fill my vapouriser (or whatever they’re called) I could buy a bottle of Mission Winnow?

My understanding is that they’re sort of non-specific non-product brands.

 

You're right, they are non-specific brands used to promote a value or lifestyle through which awareness of their vaping products are raised.  This is a long standing tactic used by cigarette companies to target 'dark' markets where there are tight tobacco advertising restrictions in place, rather like the barcode ads on Ferraris a few years back.  F1 is of course a lovely tool for cigarette companies as it promotes values of risk taking, glamour and danger whilst reaching otherwise difficult to hit targets including children.

 

I expect BAT and PMI to behave themselves in markets with tight restrictions, ie developed countries.  I don't expect either company to do anything that might cause trouble for McLaren or Ferrari as a result.  However BAT in particular has a highly questionable history of using F1 to promote their brands directly to children including distributing free BAR toys in Africa with full on Lucky Strike branding on.  How they use their A Better Tomorrow brand in developing countries is anyone's guess.

 

Will it have an effect on other companies?  I don't think anyone will admit to it directly.  However I do remember Coca Cola was one company that said that having dipped its toes into F1 with 7 UP previously that they wouldn't increase involvement if they had to share space with tobacco companies.  They also sponsored McLaren for the last three races of 2018 in what sounded like a successful partnership which I for one expected to carry on into 2019.  That didn't happen.  Were they unhappy sharing space with BAT?  Who knows.

 

http://europepmc.org...icles/PMC449824

https://tobaccocontr...ontent/21/6/529

[Fastcake]

Depends on whats in the liquid they are breathing in. Many(most/all?), contain nicotine, and are designed to get you hooked. From what Ive read they can be as, or even more addictive than cigarettes. To me they are still tobacco brands, and thats the way governments are looking at it, which in turn controls how they can be advertised.

 

Many tobacco companies, including Philip Morris and BAT, own heated tobacco products - not to be confused with e-cigarettes - which are regarded to be just as dangerous as cigarettes. This is also what these companies are thought to be trying to push harder now that smoking rates are decreasing. If these initiatives have something to do with that, and I would say "transforming tobacco" and "innovative new products" suggest that it does, I would say these deals are potentially law-breaking.

[Neno]

I'm quite comfortable with it because I don't think tobacco advertising should have been banned in the first place.

Banning tobacco also lead to many manufacturers leaving F1 after financial crisis hit 2008.  Those two crushed F1 economy. So personally I am all for return. 

Edited by Neno, 15 February 2019 - 20:33.

[JHSingo]

I'd rather just see a Marlboro logo on a car than have the rather pretentious sounding "Mission Winnow" and "A Better Tomorrow" tbh. The latter in particular sounds like something a bad political spin doctor would come up with.

 

I just want to know which team is going to be using "Strong and Stable" or "For the many, not the few"...

[KWSN - DSM]

As long as tobacco is a legal product they should be allowed to sign sponsorship packages with any sporting entity interested.

 

[Talisman]

Banning tobacco also lead to many manufacturers leaving F1 after financial crisis hit 2008. Those two crushed F1 economy. So personally I am all for return.

Which would lead directly to F1 races being banned from most of the countries they race in now.

[Neno]

Which would lead directly to F1 races being banned from most of the countries they race in now.

Not if they can get away with it. As long tobacco money is flowing into teams we really shouldnt care does it says on car Winnow or Marlboro.

Edited by Neno, 15 February 2019 - 21:40.

[paulstevens56]

Makes no odds to me, I never saw the problem with it anyway, if people are silly enough to smoke now, they certainly do know better.

Fair enough in the old days when the risks were less well known, ut they are now, so what the hell I say!

[Nonesuch]

Banning tobacco also lead to many manufacturers leaving F1 after financial crisis hit 2008.

 

How so? Neither Honda, nor Toyota, nor BMW were affiliated with such sponsors.

[ANF]

It seems that the sole purpose of these brands is to circumvent the tobacco advertising ban. Of course they shouldn't be allowed in F1.

[pdac]

I think most, if not all, advertising should be banned. Pretty much all ads prey on the vulnerabilities of individuals. I see no difference in tobacco companies trying to convince people to buy stuff that will harm then as smart phone manufacturers trying to convince less well off people that the phone they have is inadequate (and they need so borrow money to get a better one).

[as65p]

What do people think?  Are these brands cynical, even immoral, and something with which F1 should not be associated, or should the sport embrace the potential revenue stream on offer?

 

Of course they're cynical and immoral, but not any more than other businesses. Take the pharma industry, nominally there to heal diseases and prolong peoples life. Can't get any better on paper... but how it's run and how the business works is every bit as "cynical and immoral" as tobacco business.

 

And if anything, the association of tobacco or alcohol with F1 or in general motor racing is perfect. It's all just entertainment, harmful and dangerous to varying degrees, which does nothing to advance mankind.

 

That's probably why I love them all.

[YoungGun]

Yeah, we need more beer, vermouth and whiskey sponsors in F1 with the catch phrase "You're no punk so don't drive drunk." .... lets not forget recreational marijuana it's legal in parts of the world.

[ANF]

What is Mission Winnow? Mission Winnow is a PMI-driven initiative to demonstrate our commitment to continuous innovation and development of new solutions that can expedite positive change for society. Inspired by the drive and dedication of our partners, it articulates how we are transforming our business through science and by adopting a new way of thinking and exploring every option.

How is Mission Winnow connected with PMI and its partners? Mission Winnow is a PMI-driven initiative inspired by the drive and dedication of our partners. The initiative draws parallels between our partners’ focus on constant improvement in performance and reliability, and PMI’s journey to transform our business through science and technology to achieve a better future.

As part of the agreement, BAT will work closely with McLaren Applied Technologies, collaborating and sharing technology expertise; including batteries, advanced materials and design. The two companies will share best practice, processes, innovation, know-how and mutual experience.

Speaking at the launch, BAT’s Chief Marketing Officer, Kingsley Wheaton, said: “This really marks the kick-off of our technology and innovation partnership with McLaren. It is very exciting for our PRRP brands and to accelerate our transforming tobacco story.”

At the event, BAT’s new-to-world and thought-leading “A Better Tomorrow” platform was introduced and featured prominently both on the car and the drivers’ overalls and helmets.

Ban the bullshit and throw them out of the sport.

[Fastcake]

Will it have an effect on other companies?  I don't think anyone will admit to it directly.  However I do remember Coca Cola was one company that said that having dipped its toes into F1 with 7 UP previously that they wouldn't increase involvement if they had to share space with tobacco companies.  They also sponsored McLaren for the last three races of 2018 in what sounded like a successful partnership which I for one expected to carry on into 2019.  That didn't happen.  Were they unhappy sharing space with BAT?  Who knows.

 

 

It's well known that potential sponsors refused to share space on a car with tobacco in the old days. And as F1 became notorious as the last refuge of fags, there were some who refused to anything to do with the sport altogether.

 

Nowadays of course, most brands are even more image conscious. Motor sport itself turns off some. Tobacco, definitely not. Perhaps only Zak Brown can tell us for sure, but I think it's likely they'll eventually turn other sponsors away.

 

I think most, if not all, advertising should be banned. Pretty much all ads prey on the vulnerabilities of individuals. I see no difference in tobacco companies trying to convince people to buy stuff that will harm then as smart phone manufacturers trying to convince less well off people that the phone they have is inadequate (and they need so borrow money to get a better one).

 

I can't agree. Certainly, with the possible exception of Samsung, phone manufacturers aren't selling you products that harm you just by using them.

[pitlanepalpatine]

I am not against tobacco branding, alcohol branding, sugar branding, etc. I'm a bit libertarian about that.

 

Same, I'm a believer in taking responsibility for your choices, even the bad ones. If you are not capable of doing that you should be appointed a guardian.

[Neno]

How so? Neither Honda, nor Toyota, nor BMW were affiliated with such sponsors.

All of those teams were hurt by global financial crisis. When you take in account lack of success while competiting, only keeping a budget filled by sponsors would kept them in the sport. Given that tobacco sponsorship was banned it only made their life harder to replace current sponsors (which were also leaving due global crisis).

 

Teams like Renault earlier  found way to replace tobacco sponsorship with IGN, but that was more due previous success in F1. Eventually when that Singapore happened IGN voided that deal and Renault basically followed those teams leaving F1 as manufacturer team.  

Edited by Neno, 15 February 2019 - 23:43.

[Clatter]

All of those teams were hurt by global financial crisis. When you take in account lack of success while competiting, only keeping a budget filled by sponsors would kept them in the sport. Given that tobacco sponsorship was banned it only made their life harder to replace current sponsors (which were also leaving due global crisis).

Teams like Renault earlier found way to replace tobacco sponsorship with IGN, but that was more due previous success in F1. Eventually when that Singapore happened IGN voided that deal and Renault basically followed those teams leaving F1 as manufacturer team.

The manufacturers who left were looking at the finances of their company, not the F1 team. When the company profits are going down it becomes unjustifiable to throw money at F1, no matter what sponser money is coming in.

[BMWTeamBigazzi]

It is something conflicting to me as a Ferrari fan. I don't really like it but what can you do.

Where have you been for that past 30-40 years then? 

[TecnoRacing]

As pointed out, what makes it different from sugar drinks, carbon gasoline, gambling and alcohol?

 

Well, you cannot get sick from just being in the general vicinity of a sugary drink, alcohol etc...

[BMWTeamBigazzi]

Am totally BEMUSED here? everyone is still wondering what the phantom 'rich energy' is? and yet when big legit companies throw money at F1, everyone complains still...., get a grip! cigarettes, cigars still sell and are still big business! no matter what way you package it...

 

But on the other hand I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain when vaping companies started sponsoring Junior Motorsport categories? so it ok for Juniors to parade vaping and the so called F1 grown ups not to parade a real smoke?

 

Heads out of sand for second everyone, Smoking Sells, it always has, deal with it! 

[V8 Fireworks]

Are they tobacco brands though?

 

Yes.

 

Obviously Mission Winnow is meant to resemble Marlboro, while A Better Tomorrow is meant to resemble Lucky Strike.

[PeterScandlyn]

I have no comment on Ferrari's side but on McLaren's side they've been clear that tobacco products won't be advertised.
 
For example, in the UK:
https://www.asa.org....cigarettes.html
 

 

Interesting.

 

Hadn't picked up that maybe Zak/McLaren are going to monitor and veto any wrong sort of BAT advertising. Kudos...........      

[PeterScandlyn]

So Mission Winnow and A Better Tomorrow are vape liquid brands? If I wanted to buy stuff to fill my vapouriser (or whatever they’re called) I could buy a bottle of Mission Winnow?

My understanding is that they’re sort of non-specific non-product brands.

 

Can you buy a can of Rich Energy at your corner shop yet....

 

Sorry for going OT.

[PlayboyRacer]

Yes.

Obviously Mission Winnow is meant to resemble Marlboro, while A Better Tomorrow is meant to resemble Lucky Strike.

We know all about the Subliminal advertising and how PMI have exploited it in the past. Very well too might I add.

However currently its a real stretch to see Lucky Strike in 'A better tomorrow'. Sure us hardcore F1 fans relate BAT/BAR/Lucky Strike and Ferrari/Marlboro, so naturally we tend to draw an automatic connection.

Outside of the hardcore, decades long F1 fans though? I dunno. I don't think many would see it the same. Although maybe now... with all the publicity...

How ironic

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 16 February 2019 - 04:21.

[V8 Fireworks]

However currently its a real stretch to see Lucky Strike in 'A better tomorrow'.

 

You suggest BAT chose a circular emblem for no reason?    The suggestion there is no relation to Lucky Strike would be far more credible if BAT omitted the circular motif.

 

 

 

Likewise a mere coincidence that PM chose a pointy logo?    Similarly PM should (must?) drop the chevron design elements in order to show they have legitimate intentions only.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 16 February 2019 - 05:07.