Ferrari F1 barcode a ‘smokescreen for cigarette adverts’

Yup. It also turns out that being obese is better for the environment than being fit; your life is shorter and you don't burn as much fuel, don't use as much plastic, etc. Treehuggers need to step up and prove they are committed to the planet by eating nothing but cheesesteaks.

 

That's an intentionally ignorant (as in ignoring the facts) argument. Obviously the problem isn't with barcodes per se, it's that there is the Marlboro/Ferrari history and it is common knowledge that the barcode, while not a trademark or specific brand image, is clearly a Marlboro marking. If the corvette ALMS car had a barcode on it, it wouldn't mean anything. On the Ferrari F1 car, it is Marlboro advertising.

I don't agree that sporting events / F1 cars should carry tobacco advertising. While you (plural) and I are smart enough to not be influenced, it's clear that one of the reasons there are so many smokers is due to advertising. It's definitely a bad idea (socially) to allow tobacco advertising that associates cigs with very high profile very desirable fantasy activities (Ferrari, F1, cowboys in ages past, etc.).

But whether or not it should be allowed is not really the point. The point is that tobacco advertising in F1 is banned and the "livery" is clearly tobacco advertising.

That said, I do think it's stupid because no one seems to have a problem with alcohol advertising. But, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. A ban on tobacco advertising can stand on its own merits.

 

It markets a product that has serious health consequences which are not just a burden to the smoker (who cares -- poison yourself if you want), but to the public at large due to (for one thing) enormous health care costs, which like it or not is a cost passed on to all of society.

huh? what big sporting events are supported solely by tobacco advertising?

 

The commercial viability of F1 was thought to be in deep peril when tobacco sponsorship was banned.
Didn't happen.

BTW Does anyone think that the companies would put in so much money if they didn't think it boosted sales? They aren't in it for the good of the sport, no matter what anyone would like to think.

 

I'd say the doctors have done more harm then good with highlighting the brand.

I mean how many folk really knew what the barcode was there for, or cared about it for that matter.

Well no matter we all know now.

 

Based on the implications of these two statements then and the possible subliminal advertising links, I take it you agree that Ferrari should no longer be allowed to race in their traditional Italian racing colour of red because that too has an advertising connection to Marlboro? (and in the process, disagree with Ferrari themselves):


"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."

From: http://www.ferrari.com/English/News/Formula-1/Pages/100429_F1_Scuderia_Ferrari_partnership_Philip_Morris.aspx



The fact is, like it or not, Ferrari and Philip Morris Tobacco have not broken any laws and frankly, I'd rather see the alcohol advertising on racing cars banned to remove the link to drinking and driving. Afterall, how many innocent bystanders have been killed by smokers compared to those killed by drink drivers?. Smokers are far more likely to kill themselves only (though not always), through their decision to smoke. With drink drivers however, the risk to others around them is far greater as I see it!.

 

Not at all! No reasonable person could say that the red color itself is Marlboro red. Maybe it is, but there are lots of coincidences like that. The barcode is not a coincidence. It is a distinctive marking which obviously means Marlboro.

As for mere colors being ads, I thought and should have posted, that Ferrari should just paint the wing white. Then Marlboro could change their packaging to somehow reflect that. Maybe on the "box" pack, make the lid white and put 4 black circles on the sides.

Well that remains to be seen.

i don't think there's a link, but same here.

 

PM gives $ to Ferrari to get exposure for their products.
If they felt they weren't getting exposure for their products they wouldn't give Ferrari $.

Ferrari by accepting this money is promoting Cancer; Period.

There is the argument that smoking is good economically in the countries where they don't spend any money on advanced medical care. Smoking is beneficial in those countries as it kills off older less productive people who would otherwise have to be supported so it's not surprising that those countries don't prohibit Cigarette advertising. So far as I know, in the EU and other F1 venues the cost of late stage medical care is more than the savings of retirement benefits that would otherwise have to be payed out, so it's not surprising that these countries would want to discourage cigarette consumption.

 

What would you expect from a company that also promotes reckless driving, environmental pollution and energy crisis by producing and selling the kind of products they do? Not to mention the highlighting of economic disparity in the society.

 

So far as I know all new Ferrari's meet current world wide enviromental regulations.

Their manufacturing facility is quite green.

Smoking is not allowed on the line, unlike at US manufactures where it is and where US taxpayers pay for the medical costs that allowing smoking on the line causes.

As for what would I expect? If by that do you mean does it surprise me that Ferrari would accept money from PM for their F1 Program? Of course not but I really don't see the connection you're trying to make.

 

+1 I wont miss the so called non logo/barcode. The cars can stay red, the tobacco money needs to go and the barcode with it. Ferrari do not need it to prosper. Those days have been gone for sometime.

 

+100

 

+1 saying a Ferrari is like a cigarette isn't a very good comparison...

BTW hurry up with that next post Jim you'll be a double F1 World Champ.

 

Having checked out glickenhaus.com, I rather doubt it. But I'll make it clearer just in case. My point is that your original response reeks of moral superiority to me.

It reminds me of a very successful young woman who actively campaigned for "the rights of" every conceivable living creature which is basically not a bad thing. She was against meat consumption, leather apparel, furs and derivatives, etc. But it all came to a "tragic" end for us when I finally decided to estimate how many cows had given their lives to adorn the interior of her brand new SL.

 

Last I looked we don't own any MO.

It can remind you of anything you like but when you start to imply that this type of behavior applies to me you're skating on very thin ice.

Selling Cancer is Selling Cancer and that's exactly what Barcode Ferrari's do.
You want to profit on that buy MO but don't imply I would.

 

Its impossible to argue against that statement.

 

The only argument would be that PM enjoys the relationship with Ferrari including VIP treatment at races, access to the drivers, etc.

But to say that they enjoy that relationship to the extent they are willing to pay $100mm for it, exclusive of any financial benefit?

Doubtful. Borderline crazy talk.

And I guess at the most macro level, it's an open and shut case... it clearly is tobacco advertising if one believes PM derives any benefit from the money spent.

 

English is technically my fourth language. Could you please clarify that statement so that there is no room for misunderstanding on my part.

 

If they're not the shareholders would have an issue with management I think.

 

MPG does not matter...amount of gallons used does. i.e. I can build a car that gets one mile per gallon and never drive it. How much does that hurt the environment compared to a Prius that has 100k miles?

Look at Ferrariads.com, come back here, and tell me the number of miles the average car for sale has. hint: FAR LESS than the average car...now multiply the combined MPG to get the fuel used.

Ferraris aren't nearly as polluting as the Accord, Camry, etc. They are driven far fewer miles, go through fewer sets of tires, brakes, etc (so wear the roads down less), and go through servicing less often so the parts aren't needed as much.

Show me a Ferrari commercial where they have their car racing in traffic...you won't find one.

/fail

 

I missed the above in my previous reply. Any bridge between my post and your ownership of Altria is strictly in your head. I was merely checking out who you are. Or is it inconceivable to you that someone would need to do so?

 

Ohhhhh, 'subliminal' messages......

'Barcodes'............

Got me thinking............

Heading to the BAR, for a drink AND a SMOKE - which is what most people do at a BAR........

Yeah, BARcodes are subliminal.............

 

OMG I can't believe I'm defending aquapuss, but you totally missed the sarcasm. Obviously aquapuss is arguing, not supporting, Napolis' statement.

/fail

 

Remember this one?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yes, god forbid management of a huge company were to piss away money on perks for the higher-ups with money that could have gone to the shareholders