Tobacco livery/Tobacco statistical discussion

[stefan_]

Am I the only one who wants tobacco advertising back?

[adrianjordan]

Am I the only one who wants tobacco advertising back?

Probably not, I have to admit it made for generally better liveries for the most part and the money wouldn't hurt..!!

[Hail22]

Am I the only one who wants tobacco advertising back?

I'd like to have it back, No I don't support or personally smoke myself but some of the best liveries had tobacco sponsorship (subjective).

[turbof1]

Yeah, I can't even imagine how tobacco liveries would be today.

Oh wait...



.

In all seriousness, I don't really understand why they had to ban tobacco liveries, especially since alcohol liveries are allowed. Figure how that comes across: "smoking behind the wheel is worse then drinking behind the wheel, kids!".

(As a sidenote, I don't drink alcohol and I do not smoke. Smoking and drinking is correlated towards mentality and culture, not towards advertising. So hell yes, I am also for the return of tobacco advertising!)

[proteus]

The tobacco advertising would really help out the F1 in general. There are many companies that would be willing to be a sponsor for a team. This means more money for teams to compete and less problems emerging like Sauber and Lotus. I believe that banks and fonds are much more dangerous than smoking and we can see a lot of logos of them on the cars. I dont smoke, and i hardly believe that if there is a tobacco logo on the car, u automaticly begin to smoke. It is a personal decision of every individual for himself. If he wants to smoke, he will. If not, he wont.

[ChrisDanger]

I think many smokers would agree that a return of tobacco products to F1 advertising would be very harmful to a proportion of the fan base. I'd take greater public health over aesthetics any day.

[SiLo]

I think many smokers would agree that a return of tobacco products to F1 advertising would be very harmful to a proportion of the fan base. I'd take greater public health over aesthetics any day.

Maybe we could run anti-smoking advertising on the cars instead? I'm sure that would look great.

[Facts Only]

I think this thread has highlighted why Tobacco sponsorship/marketing has largely been removed. They went to great effort to make it striking, cool, memorable and generally pleasing to look at.
They weren't idiots, they knew that the cars looked great in Marlboro/Camel/Rothmans/B&H/Etc/Etc colours because they put alot of effort in. Its easy to say that "it didnt make me want to smoke" but it must have worked on alot of people or they wouldnt have bothered.

[proteus]

I think many smokers would agree that a return of tobacco products to F1 advertising would be very harmful to a proportion of the fan base. I'd take greater public health over aesthetics any day.

with 10 billion machines pumping NO fumes into the atmosphere, smoking is the least of the concernes.

[turbof1]

I think this thread has highlighted why Tobacco sponsorship/marketing has largely been removed. They went to great effort to make it striking, cool, memorable and generally pleasing to look at.
They weren't idiots, they knew that the cars looked great in Marlboro/Camel/Rothmans/B&H/Etc/Etc colours because they put alot of effort in. Its easy to say that "it didnt make me want to smoke" but it must have worked on alot of people or they wouldnt have bothered.

It worked perhaps in the past. You do have to combine it with a society-scaled ignorance towards the negative effects of smoking. Smoking exists largely not because of advertising (although undoubtly has a huge impact at the same time), but because it keeps being passed on by friends, family and even parents. Before society was introduced to mass-advertising, it was infact absolutely normal a boy/girl would receive his/her first cigarette on an age as little as 11 years (I am talking about 60 or so years back). Not that parents are usually giving that first cigarette in current times, but it is very much a self-sustaining system where slightly older associates give someone a cigarette under peer pressure, passing on a cigarette addiction to the former, and the former doing the same. It's an endless cycle which has shown that despite outright bans on any advertising, it can very much survive. If you want to root out smoking, it'll require educating the whole society, both children and elder. It isn't going to cut it with an educative commercial where they slice open a smokers-lung.

Imo, I don't see an issue towards advertising in the shape of company logo's pushing smokers towards a particular brand. I however do see issues with advertising that sees non-smokers being pushed to smokers.

(I got baited into a smoking rant, haven't I?)

[djos]

Here in Australia we have banned cigarette companies from advertising on their own packs and smoking rates have declined even further.

Packaging and branding is extremely powerful!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_tobacco_packaging

[Mr Brooksy]

If cigarette companies want to advertise allow them to advertise their quit smoking aids. It is my understanding that this market is filled by the big cigarette companies anyway (not that I know much about smoking, I have always avoided smoking for health reasons, Australia is intense in pushing that message thankfully).

So you get the cigarette companies money and promote healthier lifestyle choices.

Gives the teams the bigger budgets, the companies will want big bright and attractive liveries (yes that will mean no Buzzin Hornets or JPS Gold Leaf liveries), and it still promotes the Marlboros, BATs, and Rothmans etc of this world. Just not their ciggies.

Win - Win I say!

[djos]

If cigarette companies want to advertise allow them to advertise their quit smoking aids. It is my understanding that this market is filled by the big cigarette companies anyway (not that I know much about smoking, I have always avoided smoking for health reasons, Australia is intense in pushing that message thankfully).

So you get the cigarette companies money and promote healthier lifestyle choices.

Gives the teams the bigger budgets, the companies will want big bright and attractive liveries (yes that will mean no Buzzin Hornets or JPS Gold Leaf liveries), and it still promotes the Marlboros, BATs, and Rothmans etc of this world. Just not their ciggies.

Win - Win I say!

Tobacco companies have shown they can't be trusted in any way shape or form. As much as I love the old McLaren, Williams and lotus liveries they aren't worth people's lives!

[wesley123]

In all seriousness, I don't really understand why they had to ban tobacco liveries, especially since alcohol liveries are allowed. Figure how that comes across: "smoking behind the wheel is worse then drinking behind the wheel, kids!".

To get in on that subject, I don't believe that the subject is the person him/herself, but rather the environment around him/her. You know the health risk and chose for those risks, you are free to give yourself all the health issues you want, but others around you are directly affected by that choice.

With alcohol, that is much less the case, you don't get liver damage from sitting next to someone drinking a glass of whiskey.


Also, here in the Netherlands advertisement for alcoholic beverages must contain a reminder to not chug it all down at once, much in a similar fashion as the warning labels on cigarette packages.

This ban mainly exists because of the aggressiveness of advertisement. If it was all nice I'm certain this ban wouldn't actually exist.

[djos]

In all seriousness, I don't really understand why they had to ban tobacco liveries, especially since alcohol liveries are allowed. Figure how that comes across: "smoking behind the wheel is worse then drinking behind the wheel, kids!".

To get in on that subject, I don't believe that the subject is the person him/herself, but rather the environment around him/her. You know the health risk and chose for those risks, you are free to give yourself all the health issues you want, but others around you are directly affected by that choice.

With alcohol, that is much less the case, you don't get liver damage from sitting next to someone drinking a glass of whiskey.


Also, here in the Netherlands advertisement for alcoholic beverages must contain a reminder to not chug it all down at once, much in a similar fashion as the warning labels on cigarette packages.

This ban mainly exists because of the aggressiveness of advertisement. If it was all nice I'm certain this ban wouldn't actually exist.

2nd hand cigarette smoke has been clearly shown to be more toxic than the stuff smokers inhale so it's not an individual choice with no impact on others.

And then there's birth defects/issues too from pregnant mothers smoking or being exposed to 2nd hand smoke.

As you point out, at least with alcohol most people don't cause secondary harm from enjoying a few drinks. In fact there are some health benefits associated with moderate consumption of wine.