Tobacco Sponsorship Ban at the end of next month?

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Are you saying they would leave rather than use the opportunity to advertise one of their other products?

Probably.

To spend £50 million advertising fags in F1 makes some sense.

I'm not sure that paying £50 million to advertise cheese, which you can advertise in any conventional way, would be worthwhile.

[Dutton]

Well, why did the companies still advertise cigarettes in F1 when there were no restrictions on advertising in conventional ways? Why do other types of companies totally unrelated to F1 advertise there?

I think you will find, once the ban is in effect, a wealth of companies/brands wanting to get into action since hte negative association of tobacco has gone.

If you are saying the only companies thatwould consider it worthwhile advertising in F1 is cigarette companies....boy, the sport is looking down the barrel of a gun.

[Rob29]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Well, why did the companies still advertise cigarettes in F1 when there were no restrictions on advertising in conventional ways? Why do other types of companies totally unrelated to F1 advertise there?

I think you will find, once the ban is in effect, a wealth of companies/brands wanting to get into action since hte negative association of tobacco has gone.

If you are saying the only companies thatwould consider it worthwhile advertising in F1 is cigarette companies....boy, the sport is looking down the barrel of a gun.

Interesting.When the first tobacco ads on the cars appeared in Jan 1968,cigarette ads had already been banned from British
TV. Though I remember 'Guards' sponsoring a race back in 1961. Sponsoring sport was seen as a way to get the brand names on TV.

[Vicki]

Originally Posted by gazza285

parc fumé?

Please don't smoke around race cars, there may be spilt fuel around.

As for the sponsorship thing, well, I'm 15, loads of people at school who don't watch F1 smoke, and me, never have, never want to. So if they change the liverys, it really won't bother me.
There's my £2. (100% mark up due to tax )

[Mathias]

I'm going to stay out of both the "smoking is bad" and the "people don't take up smoking as a result of F1 sponsorship" arguments, partly because it amazes me that there is still any argument about either, but mostly because I've just read something interesting.

India has had a tobacco advertising ban on terrestrial TV for years, hence they are not showing F1 this year, despite Narain Karthikeyan and all, and despite Bernie letting them SHOW IT FOR FREE. When the European tobacco advertising ban kicks in later this summer, F1 will be able to be shown on terrestrial TV in India, thereby bringing a potential audience of over 1 billion people into F1's grasp.

Who the raging flip needs tobacco sponsors?

[chillibowl]

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15117.html

heres a link to the point you are making mathias. and it makes sense the national tv audience of 360 million people is more than watch F1 races now and prepared teams have new sponsers lined up to survive without cigs. while i think that any team should be able to seek sponsership where ever they can find it, its becoming pretty obvious that teams are really in the postiion of getting more or better access to sponsorship if they ban the tabac.
seems like a no brainer!

[ClearHooter]

A comment was made further up the board about F1 fans being more apt to smoke than other race fans. Being that F1 fans come from all over the world I was just wondering how enthusiastic the anit-smoking campaigns are in other countries outside the USA? Would this not have a bearing on that stat? I'm not a smoker. Big waste of money if you ask me. But its gotten pretty rediculous over here in the US. You can't even go to an outdoor event and light up. I think it is eventually working its way towards making them illeagle.

[Mackmot]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Probably.

To spend £50 million advertising fags in F1 makes some sense.

I'm not sure that paying £50 million to advertise cheese, which you can advertise in any conventional way, would be worthwhile.

Sometimes the point of advertising is to go beyond the norm to create an impact. Maybe Dairylea goodness would be worthwhile on a 900Cow Power car. I think that would have more effect than spending 50mil worldwide on a set of TV adverts that people have become immune to and switch off.