Ferrari in new £300 million Marlboro deal

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Can this be right?

http://www.thef1times.com/news/display/03688

[toshinden]

In the term of news accuracy probably yes. Someone at my forum also post the same news from different source.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Thanks Toshibden,

But I meant as in morally right.

[ecapox]

Thanks Toshibden,

But I meant as in morally right.

Smoking is not illegal. Unfortunately the world has condemned smoking and those who smoke more than those who produce high alcohol content liquors and those that are alcoholics.

I cannot understand how a legal product can not be allowed to advertise it's product. Not aiming the advertisements toward children or those not "old enough" to smoke, no problem. But to completely outlaw advertisement for a legal product makes no sense to me.

You cant have a Camel sponsored car, but you can have a Jim Beam sponsored car in NASCAR? No one is up in arms about the connection of Drinking and driving?

The advertisement rules state that a tobacco company cannot advertise (in certain areas). If Marlboro chooses to give $300m to Ferrari for absolutely no advertising on their cars, so be it. Now in Monaco and other places they can use Ferrari pictures for promotion, but cannot advertise on the car.

[toshinden]

Thanks Toshibden,

But I meant as in morally right.

ahh ... i'll ask first, what smoking has to do with moral? and if it has, which moral is it? What about Alcohol products?

I never heard a heavy smoker beats someone up because he smoke too much

In my country Cigarette Companies are the most biggest employer. Not to mention the tax, they played a solid factor for economic life. All the automotive sport in my country sponsored by Cigarette Companies. And even then, they still obey all the restrictions for their advertisements and not to use their economic player status to denied all the restriction.

Common mate, $300 million for not one single logo? what hurt could be done?

[andrew]

It is no worse than the likes of McLaren being involved with BAE a few years back (I don't think they are now). It is also no worse than drinks companies as sponsors.

Morality of sponsorship in F1 is steeped in hypocrisy. Some products, which are just as harmful as tobacco if not more, are deemed to be acceptable yet others are not. Tobacco is an easy target as it is no longer socially acceptable however getting heavily drunk, having a fight, eating a dubious product from a late night takeaway and decorating the pavement is the height of good social etiquette, thus alcohol is perfectly allowable.

I don't buy the link between tobacco sponsorship in F1 and someone deciding to have a puff. I have watched F1 pretty much my whole life and have been aware of tobacco brands from a very early age but I have never felt the need to buy a pack of Marlboro or Camel. I have never felt the need to buy a bottle of Johnny Walker because I have seen it's name going at 190mph.

Fuss over nothing, but I guess it is Ferrari, the team everyone loves to hate.

[beelsebob]

Smoking is not illegal. Unfortunately the world has condemned smoking and those who smoke more than those who produce high alcohol content liquors and those that are alcoholics.

Not that it changes the rest of your point much, but there's a reason for that – smokers affect other people's health.

[gridwalker]

General Electric, one of the world's largest arms manufacturers, has just signed a sponsorship deal with Team Lotus : I didn't hear anyone complaining about that (though my heart did sink a little) ... in fact I heard nothing but congratulations for them!

Sponsorship is nothing more than advertising, making it a personal choice whether you wish to buy the product and/or support the team. I try to put my money where my mouth is, choosing only to buy products from the companies that fit my worldview ... where they place their logos is irrelevant to me.

Still, I doubt that there is as strong a connection between sponsorship and brand loyalties as marketing men and professional psychologists would have you believe. I cannot stand Ferrari but smoke Marlboro : go figure.

[andrew]

Smoking is not illegal. Unfortunately the world has condemned smoking and those who smoke more than those who produce high alcohol content liquors and those that are alcoholics.

Not that it changes the rest of your point much, but there's a reason for that – smokers affect other people's health.

So does alcohol and arms manufacturers.

[beelsebob]

Smoking is not illegal. Unfortunately the world has condemned smoking and those who smoke more than those who produce high alcohol content liquors and those that are alcoholics.

Not that it changes the rest of your point much, but there's a reason for that – smokers affect other people's health.

So does alcohol and arms manufacturers.

Re alcohol – not on anywhere near the scale smoking does.
Re arms manufacturers – yes, absolutely, I don't get how they could allow BAE to sponsor anyone but ban cigarettes. The only realistic argument is that BAE isn't targeting young, impressionable teenagers with their advertising.

[andrew]

With alcohol it is more the knock-on effects along with the long term health implications. Go to A&E at ARI on a Friday or Saturday night - I bet it's an eye opener.

If I choose (choose being the key word) to become a chronic alcoholic, at some point I will proably end up in hospital, taking up a bed and medical care that could be going to someone who has lived a healthy life but needs medical care. Hardly fair is it?

Ultimately, with tobacco and alcohol it boils down to what is socially acceptable and individual choice.

[Giblet]

This debate has already been had here and it was locked, it was more in regards to the bar code sponsorship, but all the same debates are there.

It's just a shame that if you are a non smoker and a Ferrari fan you are put in a difficult position. Myself, smoke free since 2006 applauds the teams and tracks that switched despite the obvious financial incentives. Renault did their "Team Spirit" thing for a bit. Ferrari is the only team still racing of the backs of big tobacco, and I have zero respect for it.

This sponsorship deal is rather large, I wonder what Marlboro's reasoning is? The amount of brand exposure they get is very minimal, so small in fact other sponors would never go for it.

I can't imagine Santander asking for stealth sponsorship on a car, it's bad business, but Big Tobacco has so much money they can spend it however they wish to get fancy seats at races and hang about the drivers.

I consider anyone who still smokes cigs regularly to have something still wrong with them, and a team to use them still in this day and age as sponsorship to be arcane at best.

There are few wishy washy opinions when it comes to Tobacco.

[andrew]

This sponsorship deal is rather large, I wonder what Marlboro's reasoning is? The amount of brand exposure they get is very minimal, so small in fact other sponors would never go for it.

Something I read a while ago was that the shade of red on the Ferrari's has changed through the years, due to sponsorship. I'll wager that the colour of the cars is the exact same shade of red on the logo of a pack of Marlboro. Comes down to brand association I think.

[wesley123]

It's just a shame that if you are a non smoker and a Ferrari fan you are put in a difficult position. Myself, smoke free since 2006 applauds the teams and tracks that switched despite the obvious financial incentives. Renault did their "Team Spirit" thing for a bit. Ferrari is the only team still racing of the backs of big tobacco, and I have zero respect for it.

Tobacco advertising is nothing different to any other advertising, people are themselves responsible for smoking, not an advertisement. And thereby, when you go to the supermarket you will see the packs of sigarettes, if you want it or not, imo other advertising works way more on your mind then that of tobacco. people grow up seeing others smoke, so if they want to smoke they will, if they wont want to they dont.

This sponsorship deal is rather large, I wonder what Marlboro's reasoning is? The amount of brand exposure they get is very minimal, so small in fact other sponors would never go for it.

Because everyone links Marlboro to Ferrari and otherwise.

I consider anyone who still smokes cigs regularly to have something still wrong with them, and a team to use them still in this day and age as sponsorship to be arcane at best.

What is wrong with smoking at all? It is someones own choise.

[Giblet]

Cigarette smokers are fickle. You like your brand, you smoke your brand, you get mad when they are out of your brand at the corner store.

I have never seen an adult switch brands for any reason other than personal choice. This logic means they are targeting new smokers, and most new smokers are not adults. They are young and impressionable and the type that would be swayed by the coolest cars on the planet being sponsored by the coolest smokes.

When I first started I smoked John Plaeyer Special. Strong smokes, really strong, but I thought the pack was cool, cooler than others. Thus is the thinking of a 16 year old.

I had already decided to smoke though, and the brand was secondary. Myself, I don't agree with it. Some people are more predisposed to alcoholism, or some are more into guns, but everyone has the same ability to be addicted by nicotene, and this is why the 'deflection' arguments away form tobacco sponsorship are weak.

GE making guns and Johhny Walker making booze is a completely independent issue.