Smoking and F1 sponsorship

  • Thread starter Thread starter daan
  • 52 comments
  • 10,936 views

Smoking a F1

  • I have watched F1 for years and never smoked

    Votes: 67 82.7%

  • I have watched F1 and tried smoking but didn't like it

    Votes: 5 6.2%

  • I smoked before I saw F1 advertising and changed to a brand I saw on a car

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • I watched F1 and started smoking because of the advertising on cars

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other state in thread

    Votes: 8 9.9%
  • Total voters
    81
daan

daan

Salut Gilles
Moderator
Messages
37,027
Scotland
Scotland
Messages
GTP_daan
Decided to have a poll about this to see if what the tobacco companies say is correct.

The tobacco companies always maintained that they spent money on sponsorship, not to get new folk to smoke, but to get existing smokers to smoke their brands.



EDIT: I know there's already been one of these, but it was a few years ago and there was no poll
 
Last edited:
I voted for the first one even though I just started really watching it recently. I have however been watching racing in general for years where tobacco sponsorship was present and never tried it. I don't think someone will base their decision to smoke or not over who's logo is on their favorite car.


Plus, some of the most memorable schemes in racing history are tobacco sponsored cars(Rothmans, Marlboro ,Camel, Skoal(NASCAR)etc...)
 
The last option... I was almost certainly influenced by the Marlboro branding in F1, and they were my instant choice when I bought cigarettes for myself. I even procured an empty Marlboro box once to make little banners for my race courses when I played with my toy cars, although I his them when my Mum came upstairs. That said, I watched snooker religiously as a kid too, and have never smoked Embassy :sick:
 
I went for 'I've Watched F1 for years but never smoked', however I haven't watched F1 for years. Infact I never have watched a full F1 race. However I do watch most other forms of motorsports where tobacco sponsored cars such as WRC (Anyone remember Mistubishi being sponsored by Marlboro back in the day?) as well as examples such as Rothmans sponsoring pretty much every motorsport out there (Rallying, GT, Le Mans etc).

I don't feel as though this poll should be specific to F1 seeming tobacco sponsorship did effect pretty much every motorsport...But I could be wrong.
 
Voted the first option because as much times as I've seen the Players and Kool brand on the champ cars, Mild Seven on Renault F1, Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, West Mclaren Mercedes, Marlboro Team Penske and Lucky Strike on the BAR Hondas, None of them have convinced me to smoke. Hell, I wasn't aware most of them were Tobacco companies.
 
I've never felt the need to smoke and I never even had a second thought when I was younger who "Rothmans" were.
Years later of course, it did increase my knowledge of the available tobacco brands but I never felt like smoking at all.

I agree, this is not just an F1 problem, it affected all motorports down to junior levels. Marlboro and many other companies used to sponsor young drivers through the categories and WRC, Group C and pretty much all major series featured prominent tobacco sponsorship.

At the moment, the main sponsors seem to be computer companies, fuels and manufacturers plus many minor companies. I think it was totally unecessary to blanket ban tobacco advertisement like so as it cut off a major source of money to motorsports.
Did it reflect badly on the image of motorsports? Perhaps, but I don't think the average person particularly cares and in any case, motorsport is never going to get the support of Green Parties anyway regardless what image is displayed.
I care about motorsport a lot and I would hate it see it die a slow death. Perhaps if we still had the tobacco money around, motorsports could possibly have the money to fund all this expensive research into Greener technologies rather than relying solely on major manufacturers to do all the work. There could be many people in various levels of motorsport with the ideas and means to create some wonderful solutions to reducing emissions and increasing effeciency while still keeping the spectacle and entertainment.
As it is, many major series are running the risk of going bust (WRC) because they rely on manufacturers to provide the spending to push the sport. Currently, car manufacturers are in a difficult position and after the global recession most series are looking for cheap solutions rather than particularly green ones. Its nearly impossible to be cheap AND green because research and development work needs to be done still on solutions like KERS.
Perhaps with tobacco sponsors we may have more privateer teams producing the technical innovations like back in the day. Think of all the things Williams perfected with Camel sponsorship.
 
I used to smoke a Venezuelan brand (Belmont) and during the mid 90s we had the launch of John Player Special, and during some time I switched to those. Also smoked Marlboro, but I wouldn't say it's because of F1 sponsoring, although the marketing was cool. Additionally, Lucky Strike had a promotion for some time that for X amount of empty cigarette packs you could get special Lucky Strike gear, including leather jackets and F1 stuff like helmet replicas and scale models. I also smoked Lucky Strikes to get the jacket (s) :sly:
 
I chose last because I was a smoker for many years but am no more.

However, if this poll was published 2 years ago I would go for option 3 "I smoked before I saw F1 advertising and changed to a brand I saw on a car "

This, because I started smoking portuguese brands and I remember perfectly that once I decided to try Rothmans just because I loved the Le Mans 956 Porsches, and also the Toivonen Rally Porsche 911. Rothmans, back then, was THE motorsports most proeminent brand and made for the most beautiful liveries (Marlboro white/red was always dull, JPS was better and I don't like yellow therefore no camel :p)

So, nothing to do with F1 (IIRC they sponsored March in the beggining of the 80's but those cars were backmarkers and the livery was mostly white, nothing special about it), but definitely Rothmans got my attention because of their motorsports sponsorship.

Even today, I find a "Rothmans" sponsored car a beauty, just check this one out (from SCC, creator is bruno72):

In the showroom:

br72_gto_6.jpg



On the track:

br72_gto_11.jpg



BEAUTY! :drool:
 
Weren't the original sponsors of The Subaru World Rally Team a tobacco company?
 
I am strongly against smoking in general and don't plan to ever try it, so I went for the first option.
 
Back when Nascar had Winston as their sponser I never heard Winston and thought smoking, I always thought Nascar, I didn't know Winston was a cigarette brand until they left Nascar.
 
Voted "other".

I've been watching F1 since 88/89, and started smoking about 5 years ago. My brand of choice currently is St. Moritz menthol, which I have never seen in motorsport.

My decision to start smoking was not influenced by sponsorship, but as stated, my brand awareness once I started smoking was broadened by sponsorship. I think I only smoked Lucky Strike for a while because of the historical motorsport link, and having never seen Mild Seven in the UK, I did try them in Japan solely because I had seen Benetton cars covered in them for years.

I would think social connotations (along with pricing) associated with different brands, along with the sterotypes is probably a more deciding factor in what brands people purchase. The image of a man smoking Davidoff or Dunhill is probably quite different to that of a man smoking Lambert and Butler or Camel.
 
I voted the first option. I have watched F1 for years, and adore the tobacco sponsorship for the money it puts into motorsport. But as far as advertising goes, I have never even felt lightly influenced by them. I guess if I was to take up smoking I would be more likely to buy a brand I recognise first (i.e probably something by Phil Morris or BA tobacco) but I am afraid that, contrary to the opinions of the pressure groups, the tobacco sponsorship doesn't advertise taking up smoking to me, but merely what brand to smoke if I were to take it up.
 
I've been watching F1 for many years and my decession to smoke was not influenced by F1 or any motor sport for that matter. I don't smoke any particular brand that i have seen on any advertising.

I smoke because I am from a family of smokers and i thought it was what you do, so i started up approx 20 years ago.

I really do wish that i hadn't because it is and has been for a while an expensive habit to keep.
 
When I started watching F1, I started smoking car fumes.
 
I personally don't see the relationship between sponsorship and use of products. I don't smoke Malboros because Ferrari carry Malboro decals. I don't use Vodafone because they sponsor McLaren. My razor is not a Philips because the Philips name appears on a Williams. I don't drink Red Bull because they have two tems that carry their name.

The doctors who claim Ferrari have subliminal branding have gotten it wrong. It's not subliminal advertising - it's brand asociation. Like Nike's "swoosh" and McDonalds' Golden Arches, Malboro have created an image that spectators associate with them because it's been so constant. Where Jordan hanged Benson & Hedges to Bitten & Hisses or Be On Edge, or when Williams ran R? in the place of Rothmans and when McLaren switched West for Mika and David or the time when Honda's Lucky Strike was swapped for a Racing Revolution and Look Left/Look Right, their placements were always changing. But Malboro's has always been constant, and it's endured for so long that people know it means Malboro without having to see the Malboro name. Less subtle is Ferrai's official name: Scuderia Ferrari Malboro. However, I suspect that this may become known as Scuderia Ferrari Santander in the near future - while Alonso's presence in the team certainly helped the deal, I suspect Santander's primary motivation for sponsoring Ferrari this season was to get their name on the car and establish a relationship with the team so that when the time comes for Phillip Morris to depart, Santander will be in a prime position to snap up the vacant space before anyone else does.

Also, if Luca di Montezemolo is insistent that the Ferrari contins no subliminal advertising, why did Ferrari remove the Malboro decals this weekend?
 
I don't get how Ferrari is "Subliminally advertising" Marlboro on the cars. Its just a barcode and as far as I know, Marlboro doesn't have a Barcode as a registered trademark of their brand. I find it stupid that this doctor made this assumption as (from whtat I remember) they've had no Marlboro logos on the car for the last two years and yet just now, they are suddenly using "subliminal Advertising"? Not convinced.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don't care about advertising, I'm almost immune. Here in Germany there's massive Beer-Ads before football (soccer) begins, but I never felt the need: "Oh, I have to get a beer now". Same with tobacco
 
RACECAR
Voted the first option because as much times as I've seen the Players and Kool brand on the champ cars, Mild Seven on Renault F1, Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, West Mclaren Mercedes, Marlboro Team Penske and Lucky Strike on the BAR Hondas, None of them have convinced me to smoke. Hell, I wasn't aware most of them were Tobacco companies.
Click to expand...

Ditto, i didnt know rothmans were..

I will never smoke even if my house was painted in tabacco colours.
 
furai
Personally, I don't care about advertising, I'm almost immune. Here in Germany there's massive Beer-Ads before football (soccer) begins, but I never felt the need: "Oh, I have to get a beer now". Same with tobacco
Click to expand...

No one's immune from advertising. Sponsorship is as much, if not more, about brand awareness as it is about directly making someone buy your product.

I've never been a smoker, but if i were i'd be much more inclined to buy Marlboro, Rothmans, Silk Cut, John Player Special or Camel cigarettes than i would any other brand for the simple reason that those brands are so ingrained in my imagination through decades of watching or reading reports on motor racing when i was a kid.

It doesn't make me want to buy cigarettes when i see a works Porsche 956 speed past, but if were to go to a shop to buy cigarettes later that day i'd probably be attracted to that pack of Rothmans.

speed157
Weren't the original sponsors of The Subaru World Rally Team a tobacco company?
Click to expand...

Ardius
Yup, 555. They also half-sponsored BAR.
Click to expand...

Yup, Rothmans ;)

 
Last edited:
I had smoked for a long time, but my brand had nothing to do with sponsorship of racing cars. Yes I did smoke Marlboro, but not because of Ferrari. I never bought Budweiser because Dale Jr was cool, AMP either. I drink Red Bull, but again not because of STR or RBR, though I may race around at work pretending I'm Vettel in Q3 to get some stuff done faster after just consuming a Red Bull. :lol:
 
Definately agree with the Tobacco liveries being some of the best the John Player Special Lotus will always stick with me
 
I can't say that any form of advertising makes me want to go out and buy the product, but then that is one of a few ways of doing it, tobacco sponsorship in F1 has mostly been about brand recognition. I do smoke Marlboro's, pretty much because it was the biggest name I knew of when I bought my first pack, under my own will. I'm not influenced by advertising much tbh.

*goes off to buy a virgin.
 

Latest Posts

Back