Neither a ban on tobacco or a ban on alcohol is stupid. They were introduced after debate and for sensible reasons. It's just that you don't approve or them. There are several laws that I also don't like but I have to submit too; I don't call them stupid.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote: Ads of tobacco or alcohol do not increase the demand. They just steer the demand to a particular brand. Nothing wrong with that in a free market economy. And that's why a ban is stupid. Per se. Not just my opinion. Personally I couldn't care less whether these ads are banned or not. But to think that banning them would decrease the demand is plain wrong.
I'm not sure that it's quite that clean cut. While much advertising is designed to increase market share, expanding the entire market is also a goal. Either way advertisers are certainly interested in attracting and capturing consumers new to their market. This means not only selling their brand but the commodity as well.
It depends what advertisement medium is chosen. Just logos on cars or banners are all about brand awareness. If you start bringing in images or films of e.g. the Marlboro man, then you start increasing demand as well. This is nothing new but has been worked out in numerous studies.
Advertising is powerful, that you accept it or not. Advertising alcohol or tobacco using SPORT as a media is just plainly unethical, that also that you like it or not. I would much prefer tobacco companies sponsoring hospitals where their victims are treated rather than getting involved in sport where the participants are supposed to be healthy.
Not as much as it's unethical, it's much more an example of the legislators acting as nannies for grownups. My .02
How many lives lost and wars started over oil? How many die because of excess speed per year? How many get diabetes from over indulging in soft drinks? I think all the car manufacturers need to stop advertising their fast cars at races. All oil companies need to stop pushing their stuff as well. Redbull? Ban em, sooooooooo much sugar in that crap. Participants are supposed to support a healthy lifestyle remember....... Why so many want to live in a nanny state is beyond me......
+1 It is a free world and we are people of free will. We can make a choice. PS: I don't smoke but I like a glass of wine. Couldn't care less whether it is advertised or not.
+1 Seeing a Marlboro logo on a Ferrari didn't get me smoking. However, when I was looking for cigarettes, Marlboro was the first label that came to mind. Perfect example of top-of-mind advertising. Seeing a logo for an alcohol beverage didn't make me a binge drinker either, I just naturally came to think of that label when I started buying beer. That's what the point of this form of advertising is. It's not a lifestyle commercial or a advert that idolises an unhealthy lifestyle. It's a simple product logo on a car to create brand awareness. Definitely support the ban on Red Bull
Logos on cars are just one aspect of an ad campaign. Putting your logo in front of people and creating positive associations. How it's integrated in a larger promotion can determine its ultimate effect.
I'd really like to see a study conducted to check if tobacco ads on F1 cars leads to increase in new smokers.
that was my thought...ban alcohol to attract a greater amount of sponsorship, or team ownership, from the middle east.
Yes. Nanny state in full effect. We should ban sexy ads too, since it may lead to sex, dangerous STDs and will help curtail the population explosion. Besides, I find screaming children quite annoying.....lol, governments are out of control. De Toqueville was spot on.......
Maybe they should ban auto manufacturer advertisements to help reduce collisions. I know, how about electric drone cars advertising florists.
It must do, otherwise there would be no reason for it. Do you think tobacco companies were just benevolent sponsors, financing F1 teams out of compassion?
It's just exposure because they don't have other platforms to advertise in. Advertising in F1 doesn't guarantee brand new smokers. Like i said, how many people you meet, and they smoke Marlboro because Schumi raced with Marlboro colours before? Hardly. For someone like me, i miss tobacco ads because of its unique colours and liveries. Nothing more. Nothing less.
People are more than aware of the risks of smoking these days. The ones that start smoking would do it regardless, F1 sponsorship has nothing to do with it. Same as I wouldn't swap my beer brands if another company started sponsoring Ferrari or Kimi. This over governing of the stupid people is ridiculous, but the only thing that keeps the governments busy. Stopping alcohol sponsorship in F1 will not stop people drinking, it will not stop people drink driving and drink related road deaths will not even move .1%.
In some countries, brand identification is already removed from cigarette packaging, making advertising redundant anyway.
Yes true enough, and IMO branding is the reason, smokers smoke, drinkers drink regardless, the adverts are more than likely aimed at switching to their brand. The consumer may perceive different brands to be superior on different desirable attributes like a F1 car for example, and this results in his or her switching around within a set of brands rather than using a single brand.
That's what I keep saying: F1 advertisements are to raise brand awareness. IMHO nothing wrong with that.
Using this logic then, perhaps Red Bull should be banned for the untold dozens of chemicals used in its production along with high amount of sugar and caffeine which any reasonable person would agree is far more damaging to the body than alcohol. Besides, who can drink the stuff, it's awful! BHW
