Tobacco Sponsorship Ban at the end of next month?

Mekola · 23 Jun 2005, 02:55 (Ref:1337885)

I reckon that the tobacco sponsorship ban over the EU will start at July 31st, 2005 and not since October 31st, 2006 as initially was declared. That could made the next German GP as the last European GP with tobacco sponsorship.
How F1 teams are preparing to the next anti-tobacco regs? Williams actually is a la avant-garde with no tobacco sponsorship since 2000, and Red Bull, Sauber, Toyota and Minardi haven't any tobacco ads too.
This thread is to extend this issue and/or give your impressions about the item.

Raglanparade · 23 Jun 2005, 03:04 (Ref:1337890)

I dunno, it might affect the Team Spirit of Renault tho...

Rob29 · 23 Jun 2005, 07:14 (Ref:1337979)

The EU ban was always due to come into force on 1st August.AFAIK the Oct 2006 date refers to a WHO worldwide ban which is dependent on each country ratifying this.
All I wil say is about time too-should have been done 37years ago. In view of recent events,one can hope that this will bring a new F1 in the near future.

Gerben24 · 23 Jun 2005, 07:17 (Ref:1337982)

I believe Mclaren is going to lose West. I know they are going to continue with some whiskey sponsorship!

Sodemo · 23 Jun 2005, 08:16 (Ref:1338040)

This debate has been rolling on for years, I am a fierce anti-smoker I absolutely hate being in smokey enviroments, it makes my eyes water, my throat close up, hate it.

Yet I actually quite like tobacco sponsorship, and I think it should stay. I have been watching F1 for probably almost 20 years and have never smoked once. After all I believe everyone has the right to choose, it should be a free market, but if people want to kill themselves with smoke, hey let them, doesn't bother me.

Besides, tobacco sponsorship isn't aimed at starting new smokers smoking, its aimed at existing smokers changing brands, trying to change their allegiance. I think its a shame.

Skam85 · 23 Jun 2005, 09:08 (Ref:1338078)

I look forward to seeing the 'new' McLaren Johnny Walker Livery.

Question-in the post-race press conferences they say "Kimi Raikkonen of West McLaren Mercedes", will they now say "Kimi Raikkonen of Johnny Walker McLaren Mercedes"? An interesting one.

Raglanparade · 23 Jun 2005, 09:08 (Ref:1338081)

Ive followed f1 all my life as well... Do i smoke ?? NO !!

As a youngster i would watch the Australian Touring Car Championship..... this had the Winfield Nissan GTR's/Commodores, it had Seto's Peter Jackson Falcon, Longhurst raced his Benson and Hedges Super Tourer.. the list goes on.. I was aware of all the ciggerette brands at a young age.

All motorsport does in terms of sponsorship is brand awareness. You dont see a Marlboro Ferrari win, and think "If I Smoke Marlboro's, ill win too".

Yes, i was aware of the brands, but i was also aware that smoking is bad for you.

The only reason Tobacco companies continue to support Formula 1 is because it is there only avenue of sponsorship.

Personaly id rather see Phillip Morris put 50 Mil into lung cancer research then Ferrari..

BootsOntheSide · 23 Jun 2005, 11:06 (Ref:1338200)

Numerous independent studies have showed that Formula 1 fans are significantly more likely to smoke than everyone else. My feeling is that the biggest effect it has is in making it harder for people to stop, rather than tempting them to stop. If tobacco advertising didn't result in any additioanl sales, none of them would advertise, so as to avoid cutting into their collective profits.

Sodemo · 23 Jun 2005, 13:16 (Ref:1338324)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Numerous independent studies have showed that Formula 1 fans are significantly more likely to smoke than everyone else. My feeling is that the biggest effect it has is in making it harder for people to stop, rather than tempting them to stop. If tobacco advertising didn't result in any additioanl sales, none of them would advertise, so as to avoid cutting into their collective profits.

I can understand your viewpoint but I disagree completely im afraid. I don't buy the suggestion that F1 fans are more likely to smoke than anyone else? Williams is now sponsored by RBS, does that mean that F1 fans are more likely to go to RBS for a loan?
In fact I have just applied for a savings account, I went to RBS, and the deal they offered me was pretty average, so I went to Bradford and Bingley as they offered me far better rates, I didn't choose to go with RBS just because im an avid Williams fan...

Raglanparade · 23 Jun 2005, 13:35 (Ref:1338343)

Yes, but u went to RBS first...

**Adam43** · 23 Jun 2005, 13:40 (Ref:1338347)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monster

... I went to RBS, and the deal they offered me was pretty average, so I went to Bradford and Bingley as they offered me far better rates, I didn't choose to go with RBS just because im an avid Williams fan...

A bit like JPS. They were the best looking F1 cars, but horrible fags.

Snrub · 23 Jun 2005, 17:03 (Ref:1338503)

Yes we've had this debate before, but I'll add my 2C anyway.

Obviously there are results when a tobacco company sponsors F1, they're not stupid. Some argue that it will only get smokers to change brands. Apparently with products like beer and feminine care only young people really change brands (ever noticed how those ads are always addressed to younger people?). Once the customers are established adults they don't change brands. Tobacco stikes me as a similar kind of product. This would lead me to believe that it's more than just trying to take market share from competitors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monster

if people want to kill themselves with smoke, hey let them, doesn't bother me.

The UK has some form of socialized medicare correct? Your taxes are paying for those people to kill themselves. Do you care now?

**Adam43** · 23 Jun 2005, 17:12 (Ref:1338516)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snrub

The UK has some form of socialized medicare correct? Your taxes are paying for those people to kill themselves. Do you care now?

I don't care about that.

I go motor-racing. Maybe I'll crash and require some hospital treatment. I guess the same argument could be applied to say it is unfair on other tax payers that I get it. Or maybe it is unfair to treat those that go walking and might trip. Or swimming. Or anything that is not sat at home. Actually that is unfair too, as they won't get the exercise and the rest of us will have to pay for their treatment when they have heart problems.

In addition they haven't banned smoking so it is still legal.

As for advertising, presonally, I'm not bothered. Alhough Tobacco cars (aswhere the billboards) are amongst the most attractice around!

**Adam43** · 23 Jun 2005, 17:16 (Ref:1338518)

Ah, actually this is the F1 forum (so I will delete my previous remarks!). Let us keep it to how it effects F1 (or the teams in F1).

The rights and wrongs of smoking, advertising smoking and your favourite cigerette brands are all things for parc ferme .

gazza285 · 23 Jun 2005, 20:53 (Ref:1338670)

parc fumé?

Mr V · 23 Jun 2005, 22:16 (Ref:1338770)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snrub

The UK has some form of socialized medicare correct? Your taxes are paying for those people to kill themselves. Do you care now?

Smokers pay far more tax than non smokers, ergo, they pay more towards health care.

richard_sykes · 23 Jun 2005, 22:31 (Ref:1338789)

I heard the logo was going to be replaced with a "Smoking Kills" picture.

Dutton · 24 Jun 2005, 06:14 (Ref:1338962)

Apart from anything else: the non-smoker's taxes (if not used as they currently are) could only ever be not used for paying for helping saving the lives of smokers, as opposed to being used for helping the smoker kill themselves. Unless there is something very weird going on.

When I left the UK, the government was putting the idea about making smokers sign contratcs with their doctors if they needed treatment for a smoking related illness; if they broke the contract, then they would just be left to go and die of cancer or whatever.

Has that ever got anywhere?

**GTRMagic** · 24 Jun 2005, 10:19 (Ref:1339080)

There is a moral principle involved in the EU's attitude to smoking. But when billions of pounds of tax revenue are at stake, we have to consider very seriously how far we are entitled to indulge ourselves in the rather selfish luxury of pursuing moral principles.............

Yet cigarette taxes pay for the equivalent of half the cost of the British National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntary lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors.....

.........tweaked a little but basically from our fearless friend Sir Humphrey Appleby, of Yes Minister fame.. (YPM 1.3 - The Smoke Screen)

We lost tobacco sponsorship on this side of the world at the end of 1995... Philip Morris continued the next year, with a "Pack Leader" branded car, but they didnt continue after that season....

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that other brands in the Philip Morris portfolio could replace Marlboro as the title sponsor at Ferrari... or indeed the car runs in the colour of Marlboro, but no branding appears.....

Dutton · 24 Jun 2005, 17:20 (Ref:1339360)

I was wondering whether Kraft would get involved, since they are part of Altria (of which Philip Morris is part). Or is it rebranding? Not sure.

Either way, the door would be open for Kraft.

I still reckon there is eveyr likellihood of the team just running teh design without the words. Some people seem certain that hte EU laws prohibiting the desgin of products being shown etc. willl cover that possibility.....personally, I think that proving the matter ina court of law would be rather difficult.

Kicking-back · 24 Jun 2005, 19:28 (Ref:1339442)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

I was wondering whether Kraft would get involved, since they are part of Altria (of which Philip Morris is part). Or is it rebranding? Not sure.

Either way, the door would be open for Kraft.

That won't happen.

Marlboro upped its F1 presence as it was one of the few places it could promote fags.

You can advertise cheese anywhere.

**Adam43** · 24 Jun 2005, 19:41 (Ref:1339453)

What about Parmalat!

Cheese advertising. Soon that will be banned too, F1 may be their last chance too. Could you imagine it? Edam Minardi Cosworth v. Stilton McLaren Mercedes v. Brie Renault, etc...

Dutton · 24 Jun 2005, 22:49 (Ref:1339560)

Yes, kb, but the point is that tobacco advertising is soon to stop. Are you saying they would elave rather than use the opportunity to advertise one of their other products?

**GTRMagic** · 24 Jun 2005, 23:40 (Ref:1339571)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

What about Parmalat!

Co-sponsored by Enron, MCI Worldcom and Tyco

ferrarifan · 25 Jun 2005, 02:20 (Ref:1339617)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonhill9884

Yes, but u went to RBS first...

Pretty smart reply.... althought I don't agree with you....

I think that to allow tobacco sponsorship is a way to permit that the tobacco companies return the rest of us something in change of the big damage they cause.

Furthermore: I don't smoke, I don't have any HP device, I don't like Red Bull, I don't like the FIAT's....

Yes, I prefer Shell gas, and my Pathfinder has Bridgestone tyres...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BootOntheSide

Numerous independent studies have showed that Formula 1 fans are significantly more likely to smoke than everyone else.

Can you point me to any of those studies?? I'm very curious to see one, and see the methodology followed....

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I thought tobacco sponsorship was out?	dynamik gal	Formula One	22	18 Sep 2005 21:08
Tobacco Sponsorship Loopholes	Raglanparade	Formula One	38	3 Jun 2005 18:45
USGP & Tobacco Sponsorship	Robin Plummer	Formula One	5	2 Oct 2003 01:08
US GP tobacco sponsorship	J.P.Cooper	Formula One	3	29 Sep 2002 21:19