EU slams Ferrari over Marlboro partnership

[andartop]

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a f*%king big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of f*%king fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the f*%k you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing f*%king junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, f*%ked up brats you spawned to replace yourself.

Choose your future.

Choose life.

But why would I want to do a thing like that?





PS. Yes, tobacco companies are bad. Yes, smoking kills. Yes, Ferrari and PM are in business.

PS 2. No, a barcode on a racing car does not make anyone want to smoke, not more than a silver painted racecar makes anyone want to stab someone or a white painted racecar makes anyone want to sniff heroine. The whole issue is about law interpretation, not how bad smoking is for blonde little girls.

[Mr Alcatraz]

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a f*%king big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of f*%king fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the f*%k you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing f*%king junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, f*%ked up brats you spawned to replace yourself.

Choose your future.

Choose life.

But why would I want to do a thing like that?





PS. Yes, tobacco companies are bad. Yes, smoking kills. Yes, Ferrari and PM are in business.

PS 2. No, a barcode on a racing car does not make anyone want to smoke, not more than a silver painted racecar makes anyone want to stab someone or a white painted racecar makes anyone want to sniff heroine. The whole issue is about law interpretation, not how bad smoking is for blonde little girls.

Well stated!
+1

[autogyro]

+1
I totaly agree
Unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with Ferrari using illegal sponsorship from a tobacco company to gain an unfair advantage over everyone else.
Take the money away from them, job done, no problem.

[mcdenife]

what is illegal, sponsorship or advertising?

[autogyro]

what is illegal, sponsorship or advertising?

Both

[mcdenife]

Thats news. AFAIK advertising is illegal, not sponsorship.

[autogyro]

Thats news. AFAIK advertising is illegal, not sponsorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_advertising

Make up your own mind the European courts will.

[DaveKillens]

The exterior of a race car is very, very important to sponsors. That is where they gain their primary market presence. And considering that some sponsors pay millions upon millions, they expect a return on their investment by way of publicity and visible placement of their logos. Every millimeter is scrutinized, and teams of lawyers, advertising experts, heck, even fashion experts all contribute to the layout and placement of advertiser logos. Trust me, they just don't slap logos on at random or without very careful consideration. I mentioned lawyers, and they have a big say.

Many other teams got out of tobacco sponsorship, but Ferrari and Marlboro continued their relationship. And only a fool would believe that any company would spend approximately 50 million a year in just good will. No, it's for advertising, it's for a business reason. So they push the boundaries, yet remain technically legal. The lawyers are there for that reason. Just recently, when Ferrari raced at a venue where it was not illegal to display tobacco advertising, they had the marlboro logo up and prominent. When they were in a country where tobacco advertising was illegal, the Marlboro logo was replaced by the barcode. from a distance or if you have bad eyesight, they are don't look much different. But the fact that when they have the legal opportunity, Ferrari display the Marlboro logo. Yes, it's technically legal, but debatable on morality.

Now let's get down to the unsavory aspect of tobacco advertising. It is composed ot two distinct campaigns. The first is to get young people to smoke, and the second is to generate brand loyalty. You can't get loyal customers if they don't smoke. So although I do agree that people are accountable by their personal choices, I also believe that children and youths are easily influenced and do not posess the emotional and intellectual maturity to make good decisions. That's why the voting age isn't three.

Ferrari have a history of pushing boundaries. I appreciate and respect most aspects of this, they have come up with exciting and interesting innovations. So although at present Ferrari and Marlboro are technically legal, public opinion is swaying, and when that happens, politicians get involved, and they are the ones who will change the laws to close these kinds of loopholes.

Red? Yup, the Marlboro pack is red, and yes, Ferraris have been red. But not THAT red. There are different shades of red. The red of ferraris of years gone by is distincly different then what is currently carried on the 2010 Ferrari. There is Ferrari red, and there is Marlboro red, and they are different than each other.

[autogyro]

Ferrari red is in fact British pillarbox red.
For many years I thought racing Ferraris were some weird kind of mail delivery system.
By the way pillarbox red is far cheaper than Ferrari red and is the same colour.
Sublinal or what?

[vall]

what is illegal, sponsorship or advertising?

Both

As the EU directive reads, sponsorship is illegal only if it leads to direct or indirect advertising. If for example PM sponsor a sport event without advertising, it is OK. They may want to do that to avoid paying taxes for example....

[autogyro]

So you make a habit of catching straws in the wind then vall?

[Avto]

what is illegal, sponsorship or advertising?

Both

As the EU directive reads, sponsorship is illegal only if it leads to direct or indirect advertising. If for example PM sponsor a sport event without advertising, it is OK. They may want to do that to avoid paying taxes for example....

I've been trying to tell him that for quite some time now. Actually, I think it is illegal even, if the aim of the contribution is promotion of tobacco product. Alas, no one will be able to prove what was the real aim of their contract. Unless they prove the aim money was legal

[Pandamasque]

@ DaveKillens Ferrari changed that color back to the traditional looking one a few yers ago. It has been discussed here.

[andrew]

The Ferrari colour changes year on year. Are you saying that Marlboro change their packaging each yera? Not a very good use of finances for them!

The Ferrari red used today is virtually the same as the Ferrari red of 1972 (see picture posted earlier) and there was no Marlboro advertising.

I await you writing the same fakakta comment in reply.

[donskar]

As a Ferrari fan for about 45 years, and
a marketing/advertising guy for about 30 years . . .

I'd like to thank all of you for the enormous amount of publicity you have provided both Ferrari and Marlboro.

"Morality," "legality," "technically legal, but unethical," all VERY gripping reading. But ultimately I can't help but catch a strong whiff of hypocrisy ("a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.")

Let me explain: Smoking kills the smoker and those around the smoker. Excessive drinking kills the drinker and those in proximity to the drinker (think drunk driving and abusive spouses). Smoking rots lungs. Alcohol rots livers. Smoking can be addictive. So can alcohol. Both aim to grab their markets while still young. Is one worse than the other? Probably. But what's more important is that both are unquestionably bad, and in similar ways. Yet I do not recall anyone attacking whiskey or beer advertising on F1 cars. Why is that? Yes, it's legal, but moral?

Just (naively) looking for a little even-handedness here. But again, thank you for all the free publicity.