240 replies to this topic

[Bluesmoke]

I'd really love to know how much they pay Ferrari. I think I'd seen only 2 races so far where they had their livery on the Ferrari instead of that ugly white barcode.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Yes but you know it's Marlboro.

[Zmeej]

True. Also, they're just like Bernie - exploiting all those Asian nicotine junkies.

Of course, in fairness to Monsieur Ecclestone, they were doing it first.;)

[Risil]

Originally posted by Bluesmoke
I'd really love to know how much they pay Ferrari.

Just add together Felipe Massa and Kimi Raikkonen's salaries.

[Bluesmoke]

I don't smoke. I'm just saying, how thy can afford to stay in F1 when they're hardly advertised. I prefer the ferrari with the Marlboro logo over than crayy barcode.

[Nobody]

Originally posted by Bluesmoke
I don't smoke. I'm just saying, how thy can afford to stay in F1 when they're hardly advertised. I prefer the ferrari with the Marlboro logo over than crayy barcode.

Just like I'd prefer a nasty cough over full blown lung cancer...

[Dudley]

Originally posted by Bluesmoke
I don't smoke. I'm just saying, how thy can afford to stay in F1 when they're hardly advertised. I prefer the ferrari with the Marlboro logo over than crayy barcode.

They're not being hardly advertised though. Everyone knows it's Marlboro, they're getting the exact same advertising they'd have got if they'd written it.

[stevewf1]

When my niece was 15, she couldn't even pronounce Marlboro - she'd say "Malbolo"... Now she's 18 and she smokes 'em...

She's not a race fan at all, but hey, who needs advertising when everybody knows who you are (and always will)...

[AFCA]

In 2005 Ferrari extended the contract with Marlboro to 2011 and is said to be worth $1 billion.

[Bluesmoke]

Originally posted by AFCA
In 2005 Ferrari extended the contract with Marlboro to 2011 and is said to be worth $1 billion.

Holy crap! I'm surprised Marlboro didn't go the Lucky Strike route (Look Alike) using "Marlies" or "Marl-bros" or something that would get them past the EU ban.

[DREW]

Originally posted by Nobody
Just like I'd prefer a nasty cough over full blown lung cancer...

DREW

[schead]

Yeah, I would love to see Marlboro kicked out of F1 altogether. Simply because it would mean that Kimi would have to cough up for his own drinks.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by schead
Yeah, I would love to see Marlboro kicked out of F1 altogether. Simply because it would mean that Kimi would have to cough up for his own drinks.

Ahhh, yes... There's maybe another topic to discuss... Should alcoholic beverage sponsorship be allowed in F1??? After all, you can still smoke and drive, but drinking and driving?

Which does the most "damage"? Marlboro or Johnnie Walker?

[David M. Kane]

Philip Morris also owns Miller Brewing...

[Dudley]

Originally posted by Bluesmoke


Holy crap! I'm surprised Marlboro didn't go the Lucky Strike route (Look Alike) using "Marlies" or "Marl-bros" or something that would get them past the EU ban.

These all became illegal mid-2005. They're not allowed any part of their name or logo now.

Ahhh, yes... There's maybe another topic to discuss... Should alcoholic beverage sponsorship be allowed in F1??? After all, you can still smoke and drive, but drinking and driving?

Which does the most "damage"? Marlboro or Johnnie Walker?

Alcohol in moderation does no damage, can even be beneficial. Not the case with smokes.

The mere action of drinking alcohol does not adversely affect the health of everyone around you, not true of smokes.

If you have a quick drink, you don't stink of it 3 hours later, not the case with smokes.

In short, alcohol CAN lead to problems, smokes ALWAYS do.

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Dudley


These all became illegal mid-2005. They're not allowed any part of their name or logo now.

Alcohol in moderation does no damage, can even be beneficial. Not the case with smokes.

The mere action of drinking alcohol does not adversely affect the health of everyone around you, not true of smokes.

If you have a quick drink, you don't stink of it 3 hours later, not the case with smokes.

In short, alcohol CAN lead to problems, smokes ALWAYS do.

Valid points, but I can overload you with statitistic data that show that alcohol causes more fysical healthproblems than smoking (diabetes, caraccidents, liverailments), I strongly object the idea that drinking causes no problems for people who don't drink, etc, ect, but that is not the point.

I oppose bans on smokingadvertising because either a product is legal or it's not legal. I don't think it's fair goverments can earn billions on taxes on sigarets, and then try to sooth the general public by banning all kinds of advertisements.

Drinking, to give just one example, causes much more harm (to one personal health AND in general) than smoking pot. But hasj is prohibited in most countries.

By the way (to make ahead advance against a false argument) : I don't smoke. My parents did, do, and I have been urging them for a long time to quit.

[carbonfibre]

Im glad to see Marlboro stick with Ferrari until 2011. Can't see any problems with it. It doesnt cause people to start smoking, it's the people's own fault.

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

There must come a point at which paying millions to have a team run with a few white lines that looks vaguely like your logo at most races of the year ceases to be cost-effective.

Which I think was supposed to be the point of this thread, not just the same old argument over the merits of anti tobacco advertising legislation.

[Dudley]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen


Valid points, but I can overload you with statitistic data that show that alcohol causes more fysical healthproblems than smoking (diabetes, caraccidents, liverailments), I strongly object the idea that drinking causes no problems for people who don't drink, etc, ect, but that is not the point.

Alcohol cause no problems. Alcohol ABUSE does.

Whereas smoking does even in the tiniest quantity.

Drinking a small amount of alcohol is a health BENEFIT. That's simply not true of smoking.

There must come a point at which paying millions to have a team run with a few white lines that looks vaguely like your logo at most races of the year ceases to be cost-effective.

And that point comes when people don't know it's Marlboro, when people don't ask their friends what the lines are, when people don't associate Marlboro with F1.

That's going to take a lot more than 4 years.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by carbonfibre
Im glad to see Marlboro stick with Ferrari until 2011. Can't see any problems with it. It doesnt cause people to start smoking, it's the people's own fault.

Are you saying that advertising has no effect at all...

[carbonfibre]

Originally posted by stevewf1


Are you saying that advertising has no effect at all...

O yes it does, to weak people, if you go smoking because you see Marlboro on a Ferrari and because they win then your a weak person.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by carbonfibre
O yes it does, to weak people, if you go smoking because you see Marlboro on a Ferrari and because they win then your a weak person.

[Risil]

Originally posted by stevewf1


Are you saying that advertising has no effect at all...

Well, if I were to smoke, I'd certainly patronise a cigarette that has featured in F1! As a matter of principle.

[carbonfibre]

Originally posted by stevewf1

At least tell me why im wrong or dont you have a good explanation for why you would go smoking because of a Marlboro advertisement? Besides that as mentioned before you should ban all alchohol advertising as well because drinking and driving don't go together as well.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by carbonfibre
At least tell me why im wrong or dont you have a good explanation for why you would go smoking because of a Marlboro advertisement? Besides that as mentioned before you should ban all alchohol advertising as well because drinking and driving don't go together as well.

[Felix]

quote:

There must come a point at which paying millions to have a team run with a few white lines that looks vaguely like your logo at most races of the year ceases to be cost-effective.

That's going to take a lot more than 4 years.

Not until Marlboro ceases putting line drawings of Ferrari F1 cars on their packets in a sort reverse livery agreement struck with Jean Todt. in 2005.

And, that's going to take a LOT longer than four years...



David M. Kane Philip:

Morris also owns Miller Brewing...

Wrong: Miller was taken over by South African Breweries about eight years ago, and the company's name is now SABMiller

[stevewf1]

I don't care who owns Miller Brewing - as long as it is available...

[Dudley]

Originally posted by carbonfibre
O yes it does, to weak people, if you go smoking because you see Marlboro on a Ferrari and because they win then your a weak person.

It's generally considered that cigarette advertising doesn't make people start smoking.

However it DOES affect the brand they choose if they do, and cigarettes are one of those things where people tend to stick with a brand.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by stevewf1
I don't care who owns Miller Brewing - as long as it is available...

You forgot to roll your eyes.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by giacomo
You forgot to roll your eyes.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by carbonfibre
Im glad to see Marlboro stick with Ferrari until 2011. Can't see any problems with it. It doesnt cause people to start smoking, it's the people's own fault.

Marketing sells things, Marlboro spend on Ferrari to increase their smoking profits.

Starting smoking happens for varied reasons, one of those being the marketing and distribution of the product. The problem is that smoking is addictive which means people cannot stop smoking.

Smoking advertising has been banned in various countries around the world. The fact that Ferrari excepts Marlboro funding is reprehensible.

My son is not at all impressed by it, he's declared that he'll be going for a top end Audi when he makes money, despite his large collection of Ferrari die cast models.

Although he's 15 at the moment, he'll have to wait some time 'cause I am not going fund him.

[former champ]

In answer to the question......

making money. Why else would they invest so heavily in it? I'll tel ya now, Im not a smoker but if I were, it would be Marlboro I'd be smoking. That's going back to the Marlboro McLaren days, not just Ferrari currently. It dosen't make people smoke but it certainly influences which brands they do choose.

It would be good to see just how many tifosi smokers actually smoke Marlboro regularly. I'd be guessing a very high percentage.

[marcus1234]

In this day and age they shouldn't really be promoting drugs in F1, which is what booze'n'fags are. Banning their promotion doesn't impact anyone except some very wealthy peopel. I like to drink and smoke as much as the next person and I have noticed that banning their promotion in other sports hasn't imacted any of my so called freedoms to enjoy a drink etc.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean that is ok to spend billions of people encouraging them to do it.
What would be downside of having a tobacco free F1.

[Dudley]

If that's your arguement (especially in the case of booze) you also need to ban Red Bull. that has addictive drugs in - so that's 2 teams gone.

Also any junk food, that's bad for you.

Oh and Bank ads, they trick people into getting into debt.

etc etc.

Or you could let them advertise legal product.

What would be downside of having a tobacco free F1.

Our favourite sport would lose funding? If you look at F1 now, it's all 3 sectors.

Banking, Tech, Red Bull.

One financial crisis and you'd have a hell of a lot of teams in trouble.

In the days when tobacco advertising was free we had 19 teams. Now we have 10 and 2 scraping by chopping and changing drivers for money (Spyker) and showcasing a sponser in the hope they may eventually get paid (Super Aguri).

[Ross Stonefeld]

But thats because tobacco effectively played the role of a car manufacturer. They artificially raised the budgets in any and all series they competed in.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by stevewf1
I don't care who owns Miller Brewing - as long as it is available...

I could save you a lot of money by drinking a beer and peeing in a cup for you.

[David M. Kane]

What I was trying to say is that Philip Morris, parent company Altria Group, Inc., also owns Kraft Foods. It's about Corporate Entertainment and selling all of their product, just not fags...

[Ross Stonefeld]

Yes but the only PM product ever seen on the Ferrari has been Marlboro. If PM bought the space and rotated it out, that'd make sense. But it's all down to the Italian element within Marlboro. Same deal down the road at Ducati.

[Alapan]

Even if it is not on the car, it is part of the official team name. When you are a front runner, what more do you need?

[Dudley]

Originally posted by Alapan
Even if it is not on the car, it is part of the official team name. When you are a front runner, what more do you need?

And actually it does surprise me they can do this, shouldn't they have to enter the non-baccy GPs as Scuderia Ferrari |||{||{|||?

[Ross Stonefeld]

On all the team stuff they do, but I guess you can't change the entry race to race.

[Dudley]

Well you'd think you could if the entry was technically illegal.

At this point there's nothing to stop a team entering as Marlboroy Marlboro Marlboro. Marlboro.

[Ross Stonefeld]

No, there isn't. What would be interesting is if you had a chassis or engine branded in a tobacco name. The closest we've had in recent years was 'Gauloises Formula' was the name of what was effectively the Prost/Apamatox F3000 team and currently in bikes Fortuna Racing/Fortuna Aprilia in 250cc.

[BlackCat]

a bit OT, but i still feel Williams' big downhill started with giving up tobacco money and switching to Nicorette (?) plasters. so i'd love to see 'em still wearing blue and yellow with some curved word (not necessarily the name of a desert animal...) and by strange coincidence, Honda with stupid (but PC) livery seems to lose to last years tobacco-liveried Honda two laps per race or so.

ok, i know it was tobacco money that turned the sport into entertainment etc. all i'm saying: the world (and F1) as they are, F1 teams should concentrate to getting money, all the money there is. from the moment they think their aim is to fight cancer or save the earth or to find homes for homeless pets they've lost it.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Williams did pretty well 01-04.

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

Originally posted by BlackCat
a bit OT, but i still feel Williams' big downhill started with giving up tobacco money and switching to Nicorette (?) plasters. so i'd love to see 'em still wearing blue and yellow with some curved word (not necessarily the name of a desert animal...) and by strange coincidence, Honda with stupid (but PC) livery seems to lose to last years tobacco-liveried Honda two laps per race or so.

I think Williams realised that anti-tobacco advertising legislation was only going to become more widespread, and sought to exploit the opportunity to attract blue chip clients that didn't want to share billboard space with cigarette brands.

But it didn't work as well as they hoped - allegedly many prospective big-names companies still won't have anything to do with F1 until all tobacco advertising is gone. They don't want to be tainted by association. Perhaps that explains why Ferrari are clinging to Marlboro? It strengthens them and weakens the opposition.

[Hacklerf]

People who start smoking because you see an advertisement of Marlboro or Luckies or what ever, are just weak

its a shame really

[Dudley]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
No, there isn't. What would be interesting is if you had a chassis or engine branded in a tobacco name. The closest we've had in recent years was 'Gauloises Formula' was the name of what was effectively the Prost/Apamatox F3000 team and currently in bikes Fortuna Racing/Fortuna Aprilia in 250cc.

Ooh, that I like.

It's worth remembering F1 had agreed to ban tobacco as of the end of last year until the EU betrayed them.

[VresiBerba]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
I oppose bans on smokingadvertising because either a product is legal or it's not legal. I don't think it's fair goverments can earn billions on taxes on sigarets, and then try to sooth the general public by banning all kinds of advertisements.

Why not? Cigarettes does not really need advertisement, hell people all over still argue that tobacco ads does not make people smoke, which defies every logic there is by the way, which again make one wonder WHY they advertise at all.

The legality of using a certain product, is not automatically coupled with advertising it.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by VresiBerba

Why not? Cigarettes does not really need advertisement, hell people all over still argue that tobacco ads does not make people smoke, which defies every logic there is by the way, which again make one wonder WHY they advertise at all.

No amount of advertising is going to get me to buy a tampon.