Ferrari F1 barcode a ‘smokescreen for cigarette adverts’

That's the point.

LDM blinked the EU didn't.

 

Even the box will be gone by Sunday.

 

No it does not.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

A cigarette by itself won't kill you. Not even a pack.

A Mc Donalds meal won't cause diabetes.

A drive in a Ferrari will likely not be your last.

 

I get what you are saying Andreas but on this one I think you may be off base.

A Ferrari has a purpose other than to thrill... cars are useful devices. Some people pay more for cars with more features - be it luxury, performance or whatever, but they are useful devices.

The same for guns. And the same for food.

Cigarettes have no purpose other than to provide pleasure. Nothing wrong with that... except they kill you. I smoked for a few years, and I am not a smoking nazi by any means (still enjoy the occasional cigarette or cigar). But the law is what it is... the debate against the changing of the branding on the car is mostly that the ban is unjustified. That horse has already left the barn. The ban is in place. The only question is whether Ferrari is compliant or not.

I think they were not. They clearly agree, as they have removed the branding in question from the car.

It seems to be a somewhat open and shut case. PM and/or Ferrari knew what they were trying to do... got caught... and issued a BS press release about why they were changing it, but obviously the real reason is they felt they were not going to win this fight.

And rightfully so.

 

I do not debate the law. I think it was correct (although overly zealous by some do gooders) to ban the bar code from the Ferrari.

But I disagree that a tobacco ad on a race car means that Ferrari is promoting cancer. That's one step too far. They promote a product that might or might not lead to cancer. It all depends on how the consumer chooses to use that product.

 

So could Ferrari go back to the blank white box like they have on the Corse Clienti F1 cars??? Or was that not allowed and the barcode replaced that?

 

The fact that they're a few steps removed doesn't alter the basic relationship. If it makes you feel better call it aiding and abetting the sale of cancer.

 

Well, I think the vast vast majority of people consume the product to the extent that it puts them at great risk for cancer. Ferrari and PM both know this.

If 99% of people use your product in a manner that puts them at greatly elevated risk for cancer, then I am not sure the "our product may or may not hurt you, depending on how you use it" is a valid counterargument to having it on the car.

I think Jim makes a good point - at the end of the day, cigarettes = huge cancer risk. Not a great partner for Ferrari, not in this day and age, IMO.

 

See how you changed the phrasing from cancer to "risk of cancer"? No argument there.

But you can't say that advertising cigarettes equals promoting cancer. For one the link between advertising and picking up smoking is not a 1:1 relationship and second smoking to cancer is also not a 1:1 relationship. If we apply these simplistic terms, we might as well say that McDonald's promotes diabetes.

Uh, oh. Let's not get more holy than the Pope here: Ferrari already lives in glass house with its products, which have no basis on normal life. They promote excess of speed with total disregard for the environment. They're the antidote of every Prius. So now all of a sudden Ferrari is too good to hang out with the bad tobacco crowd? Give me a break.

One of the reasons I love driving my Ferrari is that it is so insanely politically incorrect. I love nothing more than drive up to a Prius guy on the highway or red light and rev the engine. In that sense Ferraris are like cigarettes: They make no sense, they have a risk of killing you, they're only here for your pleasure and they're politically incorrect and a lot of people hate them.

I guess that's why I feel so passionate about defending tobacco advertising despite having no skin in the game: I'm sick and tired of people and the government telling me of what I can and cannot use/do/read/see etc. I'm all for banning smoking because second hand smoke affects others (including me), but advertising is a different matter. Or we should ban advertising all dangerous and PC incorrect things in life, including Ferraris, bungee jumping, motorcycles, shooting, drinking you name it.

 

Agreed.

I wonder what the good shepherds see in the picture below.

a. rabies
b. Vietnamese holiday dish
c. bestiality
d. dog
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about whether or not tobacco Advertising should be allowed. It's not.

The law is quite clear on Tobacco Advertising. It's not allowed on TV. Ferrari and PM were clearly violating it and they knew when push came to shove they would lose so they plead no lo contendere and removed the Barcode. If they hadn't it would have been removed for them. LDM's whinging about it was tiresome.

Smoking causes Cancer and putting Marlboro in front of Ferrari in the teams name is pathetic.

By advertising tobacco products Ferrari was clearly promoting Cancer, they got busted for it by UK regulators on complaints of UK Doctor's and they backed down.

As for the Pope, IMHO, this isn't the time for him to be throwing stones either.

 

How funny. The bar code may have been obvious....it certainly never had any effect on me regardless, but this amount of PR has been more than money can buy....priceless, in fact. I think Marlboro wins!

 

I am a member of the bar--but my 'day job' is an investment advisor. However the lawyer side of me is clear on this . . . if it is law, you do one of two things . . . you enforce it or you change it.

For people like me, I have no problem with Arizona's new laws on immigration enforcement, because the law is grossly misunderstood. All that the AZ law does is empower the local government in AZ to enforce federal immigration laws. For Obama to suggest that AZ's laws are terrible is completely dishonest--because they are exactly parallel with the Federal law, and Obama is not enforcing it. If you disagree with the law, then change it.

The bigger picture for me is this . . . why is the government overly concerned with such matters as advertising of cigarettes?

Come on, if cigarettes are that bad (and I agree that they are), wouldn't government be acting honestly if he had an outright ban on all smoking? And if it is not going to ban smoking, what the heck is it doing regulating the legal activities of a legitimate company?

The government is--as an entity--hypocritical--it wants the tax dollars, so it won't ban smoking.

 

No question the Government is being hypocritical here by banning Tobacco advertising and not Tobacco Products but they have banned the former not the latter and Ferrari realised they weren't going to win this legal battle and caved.

I personally think many Governments not only want the tax revenue they also want older people to die off of Cancer and other Smoking related diseases and collect fewer pension benefits. PM is aware of this and the need to induce people to smoke to replace smokers who die off and that's one of the reasons they're so happy with Ferrari F1 being called Marlboro Ferrari. The Barcode was the icing but it wasn't the cake.

 

I think it's semantics. I see Jim's point - promoting a product that greatly increases your risk of getting cancer is, in effect, promoting cancer. I don't think you need a 100% or 1:1 correlation to say you're promoting the disease.

Ferraris, when used within the law and in their prescribed manner, don't kill you.

I agree that we are too controlled and overbearingly coddled by the gov't. But in this case, the law is the law.... I agree with 550... you don't like the law, then change it. But it's not acceptable to break the law under the justification of being on moral high ground.

Ferrari knew they were gaming the system, that's why they took off the cigarette ads from their car.

 

Nobody here likes "political correctness." We get that.

But this isn't about that. It isn't about "the government" telling you what you can and can't do. It isn't about whether the "barcode," or any other tobacco product logo, actually makes people want to use it.

It's about the fact that F1, and all its participants and sponsors, agreed to the rules disallowing tobacco advertising. The "barcode" is an advertisement, albeit camouflaged, for Marlboro cigarettes.

So, PMI and Team Ferrari were skirting the rules. So they had to remove the "barcode" from their race cars. Perfectly reasonable. End of story.

 

"End of story."

One would think given Ferrari's action to remove the labeling on the car.

 

You are absolutely correct. Banning ads--while a stupid thing in my opinion--is the law. And banning an ad means banning adds whether they directly mention the product or not. Countless Madison Avenue firms have had ad campaigns where the product or product placement was so subtle as to be almost non-existent.

I think it is funny that Mar--, er, um, Barcode Cigaretts has paid a billion dollars and can't advertise. Now THAT's gaming the system by Ferrari.

 

Whaaaaaat F zat I'm on top of my game again..
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Sauber has announced sponsorship from Burger King Spain, a subsidiary of the US corporation, which is a publicly-traded company with investment firms of TPG Capital, Bain Capital, and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners each owning about 25% of the stock.

What!! don't they know getting folk fat causes cancer.

 

Cohiba? But not a barcode.

Actually, without a ring on it, it is probably an Epicure. (Hoyo)

 

Only ze best for the ze best methinks..

 

I think that you're being just a bit disingenuous here. It's not a simple matter of tax revenue. All that such a ban would accomplish is a huge black market in tobacco products. You know that, I know that, and the government knows that. Prohibition of 1920-1933 and the ongoing "War on Drugs" are prime examples, if you need any.

Such a ban would not only mean a loss of tax revenue, but also hundreds of millions of $$ spent on futile enforcement. I think that's what's called a "lose / lose situation".

 

Fixed..
Image Unavailable, Please Login