Marlboro and advertising on Ferrari

[Derek Smith]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/a...

I know Ferrri is well known for not only sticking to the letter of the rules but sticking to the spirit as well, or, at the very least sticking two fingers up to it, but the barcode is a bit cheeky.

Regardless of what you feel about the anti-smoking laws on advertising, flagrantly ignoring them is not really the way to go.

I'm not sure anything will be done officially but I bet some pressure will be exerted on the team.

I like Phil Morris' "$100 million [a year] is not a correct figure. We do not disclose the figure — the figure you mention, it is lower."

So in typically obscure language we now don't know if the $100,000,000 is the lower figure or the sum they give Ferrari not to advertise their products.

Regardless of what you believe about tobacco, it costs us a fortune. I've just been in hospital to see a neighbour who has emphysemia or an illness spelt similarly. The ward is full of people being given oxygen. We pay for all that. Phillip Morris doesn't. That $100,000,000 should go to take the pressure off the NHS.

[Ralf Rockefeller]

A load of tosh.

Bring back tabacco advertising, and bring back the proper V10s.

F1 used to be a proper mans game/sport/business.

Its now just something trying to blend in with society, but never will.
What next, 1.5 litre 4 pot turbo engines to look green, but in truth makes no difference.

Give it up, and go back to its roots!

[Derek Smith]

Ralf Rockefeller said:

F1 used to be a proper mans game/sport/business.

Smoking is girly nowdays. And those blokes you see standing out in the rain puffing away always look something less than manly. No offence to you smokers, but they do.

Out of the whole first team squad of my son's semi-professional rugby team, two smoke. And they are not, you might say, the hardest there.

Smoking is no longer seen as macho, unless you are a lesbian of course.

[bob1179]

Seeing the word 'Marlboro', 'Camel' or 'Rothmans' on the side of a racing car or motorcycle does not make me go out and by a packet of cigarettes.

This is a ridiculous waste of taxpayers money. Who really cares other than a bunch of interfering do-gooders?

Marlboro sponsoring Ferrari, or any other team for that matter is good for the sport as it brings cash in. I can't really see how a bar code is a 'subliminal message'.

[ZeeTacoe]

Derek Smith said:

Regardless of what you believe about tobacco, it costs us a fortune. I've just been in hospital to see a neighbour who has emphysemia or an illness spelt similarly. The ward is full of people being given oxygen. We pay for all that. Phillip Morris doesn't. That $100,000,000 should go to take the pressure off the NHS.

no the smokers pay. They pay with that massive excess that they the smokers pay into the nhs and that most of them don't take out.

[andye30m3]

I thought that one of the tobacco brands did some research into the cost of smoking on the NHS and they saved the NHS a fortune by killing people off early.

I can't believe that people smoke because of a brand name being written on the side of a car.

[Mastiff]

Hmmmm. Subliminal advertising eh? When car and driver are painted/dressed to look EXACTLY like a packet of Marlboro, a small barcode seems like a moot point to me.

[Muzzer]

Derek Smith said:

Regardless of what you believe about tobacco, it costs us a fortune. I've just been in hospital to see a neighbour who has emphysemia or an illness spelt similarly. The ward is full of people being given oxygen. We pay for all that. Phillip Morris doesn't. That $100,000,000 should go to take the pressure off the NHS.

Do you realise how much tax revenue smoking generates?

Those things aren't 6 quid a pack due to high tobacco prices chum, it's all going in Darling's back pocket.

So no, Philip Morris don't pay for the healthcare. Chances are the person receiving it has paid for it his/herself over years of smoking and tax payments.

WRT Ferrari's branding, I don't think that there's anything subliminal in the logo. The only way that people know it's Marlboro is that Marlboro's name is in the team title and every bugger knows they're sponsored by Marlboro anyway.

What bugs me is Ferrari's insistence on staying with this company, which in my opinion jeopardises other blue chip companies coming into the sport.

Would Coca-Cola participate in F1 with a Marlboro backed car next to them on the grid? No.

[Richard-G]

you know, i always think its kind of ironic that we fought in 2 great wars to allow our fine, free thinking people to do exactly as we please within the laws and with respect to others. I am not a smoker but as we live in the free west i would not begrudge any of my fellow men and women a toke on a smooth marly, HOWEVER of late the liberals in the govt like to ban things that just 20 years ago no one would bat an eyelid too. Of late though they really don’t have to as they seem to have formed a lilly liverd 'gay brigade' who go around being holier than thou mind policing us into thinking certain things are wrong and we are wrong for believing/thinking/doing them. If it costs morris £100m to give these fun sponges the finger, then its money well spent

and in an even richer irony, has anyone noticed the alcohol (spirits no less) sponsorship on certain teams based in the uk? now, what do you think is next for the chop given all the bks about drink driving

[Steamer]

andye30m3 said:

I can't believe that people smoke because of a brand name being written on the side of a car.

I remember a young stupid impressionable friend producing a packet of 'Kingfisher' fags down the pub not long after he got into bike racing.

I also remember not that long ago (well it doesnt seem that long ago) when the Rothmans girls at the Autosports shows ect. would swap your almost empty packet of 'other brand' cigarettes for a full pack of Rothmans.

[williamp]

bob1179 said:

Seeing the word 'Marlboro', 'Camel' or 'Rothmans' on the side of a racing car or motorcycle does not make me go out and by a packet of cigarettes.

It does with me. i remember one year at Goodwood FOS I saw a lotus 49. For ages afterwards I looked for a pack of Gold leaf Players. Could I find them anywhere? No. It seems nowhere in Sussex sold Gold Leaf players. So I couldnt start smoking

[zac510]

This bar code has been there for at least half a dozen years? Now they are fussing over it? Get a grip really. I was beginning to think that the bar code might have no brand significance to the new young generation of F1 fans but this lot are playing into its hands.

I once saw a red F1 car (unmistakably a Ferrari) on a Marlboro cig packet not long after the advertising ban. I wonder why they didn't pursue that form of cross advertising more heavily, but maybe it was socially risky.

[Muzzer]

Steamer said:

andye30m3 said:

I can't believe that people smoke because of a brand name being written on the side of a car.

I remember a young stupid impressionable friend producing a packet of 'Kingfisher' fags down the pub not long after he got into bike racing.

I also remember not that long ago (well it doesnt seem that long ago) when the Rothmans girls at the Autosports shows ect. would swap your almost empty packet of 'other brand' cigarettes for a full pack of Rothmans.

I remember my 1st Grand prix at Silverstone in 1995 and the girls on the Marlboro stand doling out free packs of Marlboro. There wasn't even a swap deal involved, they were just dishing them out!

[Derek Smith]

ZeeTacoe said:

no the smokers pay. They pay with that massive excess that they the smokers pay into the nhs and that most of them don't take out.

andye30m3 said:

I thought that one of the tobacco brands did some research into the cost of smoking on the NHS and they saved the NHS a fortune by killing people off early.

That's not quite correct. Whilst smokers do die early they are ill earlier as well. Being ill is what costs the NHS. Dieing early merely saves on pension payments and possibly some arthritus tablets.

As Andy pointed out, this was 'research' - read propaganda - from the tobacco companies. Don't forget that they will not admit to causing some of the diseases that there is overwhelming evidence that smoking is a major contributory factor.

There was a report from one hospital that (I forget the actual percentage) 40% of the x-rays they performed were for smoking related diseases. The savings on infrastructure, training of nurses and radiogrpahers and such, equipment and, most importantly, the delay in dealing with people who had other diseases, all cost and this needs to be taken into consideration.

I once went into hospital for a biopsy on two lumps in my throat. There was a ward put by especially for this weekly event. There were nine of us. I was the only non-smoker. Fair enough, drinking alcohol is a contributory factor as well, but I was told by the surgeon that as I didn't smoke I was eighty (that's 80) times less likely to have an aggressive cancer. At the time, I don't know if it still does, the tobacco lobby denied throat cancer had anything to do with smoking.

As they do with heart disease. As they do with emphysema as they suggest it has other causes not down to them. Also the infections you get in the gunge that remains in your lungs is what kills you - it killed a couple of my relatives - but the tobacco company say it is nothing to do with smoking.

They deny causing the deaths of anyone forced to have a lung transplant who then dies due to their immune suppresent drugs.

If I was more certain of the spelling of bronchitis I could go on.

I was talking to a fireman (at Gatwick. They had lots of time to talk there, as indeed did I) and he reckoned that a considerable percentage of fires were caused by smokers. Think of Kings Cross.

Then there is the cost of workers taking ten minutes out of each hour to smoke.

There is no argument whatsoever, unless you are PR for Philip Morris, that smoking costs each and every one of us. The fact it costs smokers more in taxes is not really all that comforting.

Although I'm a reformed smoker I was never all that bothered until I had my biopsy. Out of the eight, one was sent home because he was too far gone to operate on. Or, to put it another way, call in at the undertakers on your way home. And the other seven all had tracheostomies (I struggle with spelling). One was a young mother who worked 14-16 hours a day as radio operator for her husband's cab business. All very sad and all very preventable.

She, and the other six, cost a considerable amount of money. They had operations that are all but unheard of for non-smokers. That took a doctor out of the list for other surgical procedures.

Regardless of any moral imperative, Ferrari, by advertising the other PH, are part of the problem.

I used to word in advertising, only designing and printing the ads and such, but I got to know a lot about the research. Association is the thing. You smoke, you like Ferrari, you see the brand, you buy. Whether it encourages smokers is up for argument. However, there is little doubt that the glamour associated with the other PH (less the coughing, spitting, the smell and the dirt of course) lowers the desire and commitment to quit.

If it didn't work the other PH wouldn't do it. They do their real research on how to sell more fags. $100,000,000 is all about return on investment. If it didn't happen they wouldn't spend the money.

Advertising tobacco is against the rules. By breaking the rules Ferrari gain an advantage - tobacco millions. It is unfair.

[E30M3SE]

Muzzer said:

Steamer said:

andye30m3 said:

I can't believe that people smoke because of a brand name being written on the side of a car.

I remember a young stupid impressionable friend producing a packet of 'Kingfisher' fags down the pub not long after he got into bike racing.

I also remember not that long ago (well it doesnt seem that long ago) when the Rothmans girls at the Autosports shows ect. would swap your almost empty packet of 'other brand' cigarettes for a full pack of Rothmans.

I remember my 1st Grand prix at Silverstone in 1995 and the girls on the Marlboro stand doling out free packs of Marlboro. There wasn't even a swap deal involved, they were just dishing them out!

If you don't smoke someone, a dolly bird or not, dishing out free packets is not going to get the average person to start smoking.

Dishing out free packets is a brand switching exercise.

[Rude-boy]

Derek Smith said:

Regardless of what you believe about tobacco, it costs us a fortune. I've just been in hospital to see a neighbour who has emphysemia or an illness spelt similarly. The ward is full of people being given oxygen. We pay for all that. Phillip Morris doesn't. That $100,000,000 should go to take the pressure off the NHS.

Derek,

Quite often you speak with common sense and, whilst I do not always agree with your posts, your views are often illuminating.

This paragraph, whilst emotive, is however less than half of one side of the argument. Ultimately one must look at the savings attributable to the earlier death of smokers who, whilst they require a little more care in their final months or even years in some cases, will not be having the hip replacements, care home costs, pensions, winter fuel payments, bus passes, etc, etc. When looked at as a whole i think you will find that the fiscal 'cost' of smokers to the economy is very little.

I would also mention that of all the smokers I know I can't think of one who spends 10 minute per working hour smoking and most of them work far more unpaid hours per month than they spend helping fuel the economy by keeping all those health care professionals and medical research organisations in a job

Anyway this is the Motorsport section so i shall step away from the drum now

[Rude-boy]

John Fish on newspaper link said:

I have just noticed that it also says "Santander" on the drivers overalls which includes the letter 'a' from the word Marlboro. I don't know what to say, this is disgraceful. The EU should immediately look at banning the letter 'a'.

Edited by Rude-boy on Thursday 29th April 11:33

[homer3uk]

Sorry rude boy, Have to agree with derek. I know the effects smoking related deseases and early death has on those left behind.
Money saved on smoking could make a huge diference for the NHS. Early death is not an advantage for anyone and cant belive people are using it as an excuse to chuff away to they're (pardon the pun) hearts content.
As for advertising I dont see that it can create new smokers, more to influence exsisting ones.
Smoking is an individual choice, in the suposidley free westen sociaty we live in to just force people to stop would be and is wrong. But to curb how and where when other peoples cival libertys are at stake is of the up most importance.
I can only speak as I see and as I have experianced.

[Muzzer]

homer3uk said:

Money saved on smoking could make a huge diference for the NHS. Early death is not an advantage for anyone and cant belive people are using it as an excuse to chuff away to they're (pardon the pun) hearts content.

Tobacco products bring in approx £10billion a year in tax revenue.

Smoking costs the NHS approx £1.5billion a year.

You do the maths.

[mcdjl]

So subliminal and effective that they've failed to notice it for the last 5 years. I thought it was common knowledge?