As the discussion on the presumed use of the livery on the Ferrari Formula 1 car as subliminal advertising for Philip Morris products continues to be a hot topic the Scuderia Ferrari has decided to modify their livery starting with the Spanish GP.
Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Scuderia Ferrari and Philip Morris International Sponsorship
Maranello, 29 April – Today and in recent weeks, articles have been published relating to the partnership contract between Scuderia Ferrari and Philip Morris International, questioning its legality. These reports are based on two suppositions: that part of the graphics featured on the Formula 1 cars are reminiscent of the Marlboro logo and even that the red colour which is a traditional feature of our cars is a form of tobacco publicity.
Neither of these arguments have any scientific basis, as they rely on some alleged studies which have never been published in academic journals. But more importantly, they do not correspond to the truth. The so called barcode is an integral part of the livery of the car and of all images coordinated by the Scuderia, as can be seen from the fact it is modified every year and, occasionally even during the season. Furthermore, if it was a case of advertising branding, Philip Morris would have to own a legal copyright on it.
The partnership between Ferrari and Philip Morris is now only exploited in certain initiatives, such as factory visits, meetings with the drivers, merchandising products, all carried out fully within the laws of the various countries where these activities take place. There has been no logo or branding on the race cars since 2007, even in countries where local laws would still have permitted it.
The premise that simply looking at a red Ferrari can be a more effective means of publicity than a cigarette advertisement seems incredible: how should one assess the choice made by other Formula 1 teams to race a car with a predominantly red livery or to link the image of a driver to a sports car of the same colour? Maybe these companies also want to advertise smoking! It should be pointed out that red has been the recognised colour for Italian racing cars since the very beginning of motor sport, at the start of the twentieth century: if there is an immediate association to be made, it is with our company rather than with our partner.
I wonder if any of the 'tifosi' out there can now see the absolute truth, that Ferrari has been operating its race team with a huge unfair budget advantage for years.
It is not only a matter concerning tobacco advertising, the whole issue shows the background to the establishment of Fota and the reasons behind it. It shows just how corrupt those behind this were.
I think it is a shame that the red of Ferrari and Italy has fallen so low as to become simply an advertising medium aimed at killing young people with man made cancer through deceit.
This should not be part of F1.
Scuderia Ferrari and Philip Morris International Sponsorship
Maranello, 29 April – Today and in recent weeks, articles have been published relating to the partnership contract between Scuderia Ferrari and Philip Morris International, questioning its legality. These reports are based on two suppositions: that part of the graphics featured on the Formula 1 cars are reminiscent of the Marlboro logo and even that the red colour which is a traditional feature of our cars is a form of tobacco publicity.
Neither of these arguments have any scientific basis, as they rely on some alleged studies which have never been published in academic journals. But more importantly, they do not correspond to the truth. The so called barcode is an integral part of the livery of the car and of all images coordinated by the Scuderia, as can be seen from the fact it is modified every year and, occasionally even during the season. Furthermore, if it was a case of advertising branding, Philip Morris would have to own a legal copyright on it.
The partnership between Ferrari and Philip Morris is now only exploited in certain initiatives, such as factory visits, meetings with the drivers, merchandising products, all carried out fully within the laws of the various countries where these activities take place. There has been no logo or branding on the race cars since 2007, even in countries where local laws would still have permitted it.
The premise that simply looking at a red Ferrari can be a more effective means of publicity than a cigarette advertisement seems incredible: how should one assess the choice made by other Formula 1 teams to race a car with a predominantly red livery or to link the image of a driver to a sports car of the same colour? Maybe these companies also want to advertise smoking! It should be pointed out that red has been the recognised colour for Italian racing cars since the very beginning of motor sport, at the start of the twentieth century: if there is an immediate association to be made, it is with our company rather than with our partner.
So is Ferrari saying it does not receive millions from Malboro and that they do nothing whatsoever for this money?
Do they think anyone in their right mind will believe this?
Tim.Wright wrote:I recall seeing barcode branded Williams in 95 when they were not allowed to carry their Rothmans signage.
So thats 15 years ago
Tim
That was done just for individual races by all tobacco sponsored teams, because local laws of some GP hosts did not allow tobacco advertising.
It was changed later to full tobacco ban on whole F1 level. If they were getting money, and the authorities will find the way to get info from US or Italian financial institution than they're screwed.
Giblet wrote:I understand what you are saying. You shouldn't legislate morality, but as a society we can and do in all facets of it.
All kinds of things that are morally unacceptable are against the law where I live, Canada. Taking pot is against the law, except for medical purposes. I only say 'taking' as you don't have to smoke it to get high. I have no moral or ethical problems with pot, but I also don't think that a kid should try it, because he saw an ad with a cool looking guy smoking a joint and laughing with a bunch of pretty girls.
But pot is not a physically addictive substance. This is where the moral problem with tobacco lies.
Ferrari should be able to carry the Marlboro advertising as well, however they should have to slap a surgeons general warning on each car and logo right beside them. Subliminal or not.
Once addiction comes into play, you are in essence stealing in whole or in part someones will power. We can't add addictive substances to food to hook people on brand of burger for this same reason. It's unfair, just as adding hazardous chemicals to tobacco to increase it's addictive properties is purely evil, and should be dealt with as such.
If Tobacco was not addictive, I would have no problem with it being advertised, as few if any people would continue to smoke it regularly.
For me the ideal solution is simple. Ban all tobacco advertising, and all profits should go directly into the healthcare system. Every team but Ferrari seem to be able to run a couple race cars without it.
what about caffeinated drinks such as red bull they are addictive and have substances added to them. They are not good for the heart or really any other things in your body for that matter. Should we ban red bull racing too.
No, but find me a link to cancer and heart disease, and adverse health effects to those in the vicinity of those consuming them, and I would be all over it. Show me someone in an iron lung, or who have no daddy anymore to take them to soccer practice anymore because of Red Bull.
People don't start tweaking out and looking for change in the couch to buy Red Bull when they are broke.
Heavy energy drink users don't have 25 to 50 of them a day, and they are consumed into the stomach which is designed to consume food and drink. Lungs are not meant to have hot smoke pulled deeply into them and to be used as a delivery system of anything but oxygen.
Everything in energy drinks is available in other products. Nicotine, as far as I know, is only delivered via tobacco, not withstanding e-cigarettes and gum and patches which only exist to get you off of smoking.
I have yet to hear of anyone having a hole cut in their throat or vocal chords being removed because of caffeinated sugar water.
They are simply not on the same scale, and you know better than to think they are even close.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute
46 years old and a racing fan for most of them...the Winston Cup, Indy Car (Kool), and F1 (Lucky Strike, Marlboro)....never smoked in my life...never wanted to. We all have choices to make in life...and choices have consequences. Everyone today knows smoking will kill you....let us all be free to make our choices. I would choose to allow such advedrtising.
Giblet wrote:No, but find me a link to cancer and heart disease, and adverse health effects to those in the vicinity of those consuming them, and I would be all over it. Show me someone in an iron lung, or who have no daddy anymore to take them to soccer practice anymore because of Red Bull.
People don't start tweaking out and looking for change in the couch to buy Red Bull when they are broke.
Heavy energy drink users don't have 25 to 50 of them a day, and they are consumed into the stomach which is designed to consume food and drink. Lungs are not meant to have hot smoke pulled deeply into them and to be used as a delivery system of anything but oxygen.
Everything in energy drinks is available in other products. Nicotine, as far as I know, is only delivered via tobacco, not withstanding e-cigarettes and gum and patches which only exist to get you off of smoking.
I have yet to hear of anyone having a hole cut in their throat or vocal chords being removed because of caffeinated sugar water.
They are simply not on the same scale, and you know better than to think they are even close.
At this risk of taking this topic even more off course I respect your opinion and I am ceasing discussion on the topic.
I think it's simple as this, statistically waise, tobacco companies are not into racing for charity.
Neither is Johnnie Walker, Skoal bandit or Valvoline.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
The EU have 'slammed Ferrari' about tobacco advertising, so I fail to see how any of the posts have gone off topic.
It will be interesting to find out just how much Malboro give to Ferrari for their racing budget and whether it is proven to be tobacco advertising.
Perhaps the truth about unfair advantage can finaly be brought into the public arena.
Wait wasn’t it like, Marlboro buying most of the advertising space on Ferrari and selling it to others. And one billion figure was for a five year deal or something. Thing is Ferrari can do whatever they want as long as it is legal and not in the Max Mosley or Charlie Whiting thinks it’s legal, so it must be legal kind of way. Ferrari have been running this advert thing for many years, thing is why react to it now? Marlboro paid for some advertisement space on the car and what they put up there is completely to their discretion. Also, the money Ferrari receive is nothing to be ashamed of, as far as I know you can’t have tobacco advertising on the car no one said anything about any other partnership deals.
Avto wrote:Wait wasn’t it like, Marlboro buying most of the advertising space on Ferrari and selling it to others. And one billion figure was for a five year deal or something. Thing is Ferrari can do whatever they want as long as it is legal and not in the Max Mosley or Charlie Whiting thinks it’s legal, so it must be legal kind of way. Ferrari have been running this advert thing for many years, thing is why react to it now? Marlboro paid for some advertisement space on the car and what they put up there is completely to their discretion. Also, the money Ferrari receive is nothing to be ashamed of, as far as I know you can’t have tobacco advertising on the car no one said anything about any other partnership deals.
It is too late Avto, the cover ups are irelevent. No one with even the tiniest intelect will believe that the Ferrari/Malboro deal was anything other than a way to keep advertising the Malboro cigarette brand in the face of EU law. It is obvious to everyone.
All the money invested should be taken as fines by the EU courts.
Avto wrote:Wait wasn’t it like, Marlboro buying most of the advertising space on Ferrari and selling it to others. And one billion figure was for a five year deal or something. Thing is Ferrari can do whatever they want as long as it is legal and not in the Max Mosley or Charlie Whiting thinks it’s legal, so it must be legal kind of way. Ferrari have been running this advert thing for many years, thing is why react to it now? Marlboro paid for some advertisement space on the car and what they put up there is completely to their discretion. Also, the money Ferrari receive is nothing to be ashamed of, as far as I know you can’t have tobacco advertising on the car no one said anything about any other partnership deals.
It is too late Avto, the cover ups are irelevent. No one with even the tiniest intelect will believe that the Ferrari/Malboro deal was anything other than a way to keep advertising the Malboro cigarette brand in the face of EU law. It is obvious to everyone.
All the money invested should be taken as fines by the EU courts.
Cover up what... what cover up as long as EU or whoever it might be can’t prove that this images on Ferrari are indeed Marlboro adverts, no one can ask Ferrari to pay anything, well yeah except maybe taxes.
