Liveries and aesthetic exercises

[beelsebob]

Someone should let the tobacco sponsorship back in F1.

Mild Seven / John Player / Gold Leaf / Rothmans / Winfield / Marlboro / Camel - all had great liveries.

And support and encourage people again to destroy their health?

If you let yourself influenced by a commercial and say "Oh well, it's on an F1 car - I should try smoking" then the problem is at your end, not theirs.

No, not really. Advertising works, it's been proven to work, that's why there are companies that will pour hundreds of millions of dollars into it – because they know it will make them that back again, and more. Advertisers are very good at exploiting human behaviours and biases, and frankly, anyone who thinks "advertising doesn't work on me" is deluding themselves.

[SiLo]

The problem isn't that we won't let tobacco advertisers back into the sport, it's that the liveries they design these days are rubbish! Personally I think the Caterham looks very nice, and the Mclaren is very sexy, I really hope they get a title sponsor that let's them keep that lovely day-glow red on the side pods.

They just need a lot more sponsors than they used to. The Marlborough Mclaren didn't have much else sponsorship on it, but it looked the dogs nuts!

[stefan_]

I think the shade of green they used this year on the Caterham was absolutely horrendous. The darker one was so much better.

Sauber does pretty good liveries though.

[Writinglife]

Sorry, but the Williams with the Winfield livery was one of the ugliest ones I ever saw, though I agree that most of the list is accurate, just forgetting Benson & Hedges. The Jordan liveries with the B&H were fantastic, as well as the West Mclaren liveries.

[Cold Fussion]

propaganda?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gua ... er_372.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xml5uT60WXk/T ... ects-1.png

yes if f1 would still advertise it would have effect. It would promote thus have results. simple as that. you don't think companies pay billions for superbowl ads or billions on sponsorships if it wouldnt result in buyers?

just look at the basic fanboy. whatever his 'hero' drinks or advertises he'll get. Redbull is very bad for health especially
youngsters. But since Redbull is wide open winning championships, there's benefit.

if Hamilton would have Marlboro on the side of his car, fanboys would buy and defend marlboro; atleast to the point that since it isnt on his car, it interests less. Imagine kimi having a personal marlboro sponsor.

Half the people I went to school with believe passive smoking is worse than actual smoking, because we were fee that garbage at school. Tobacco advertising being banned is purely political, it's about governments worldwide showing the tobacco industry that they're in charge. It is completely arbitrary to ban tobacco advertising because it's bad for you, you still see alcohol and fast food advertising, despite the fact both will kill you if taken enough.

[Moxie]

I also somewhat doubt that tobacco advertising will have more people smoking, especially today with the shear amount of anti smoking propaganda that is shoved down everyones throat.

Now you are just being silly.

Companies ( Tobacco companies) are not in the habit of throwing around that kind of money for nothing. The advertizing works, and there are very highly paid finance executives who do the statistics so that they know just how well it works, and spend their advertizing budged accordingly. You may have a lot of arguments about the morality of advertizing tobacco products, but don't pretend that the advertizing has no effect.

[Cold Fussion]

I'm not saying it doesn't have an affect, but I don't think the majority of non smokers in today's world would see tobacco advertising and decide they'll start smoking, I think the advertising is more aimed more at the smokers market.

[wesley123]

This small crowd that is truly affected by it and starts smoking because of it will always bring quite a few guys with him under peer pressure. Plus, think of all those people that do smoke and are more likely to smoke Marlboro because they saw it in F1

[Moxie]

I'm not saying it doesn't have an affect, but I don't think the majority of non smokers in today's world would see tobacco advertising and decide they'll start smoking, I think the advertising is more aimed more at the smokers market.

From your writing style I am assuming you are American and that you are old enough to remember the events I present here. I will not take the time to provide references here, but the facts I present can be checked easily enough. Remember the "Big Multi-State Tobacco Settlement" that took place about ten or fifteen years ago? The states had ample evidence of the advertizing strategy of the tobacco firms. The firms had intentionally attempted to deceive the public about the negative health effects of tobacco use and second hand smoke. The firms had intentionally marketed their products to children.

Indeed, in the 1980's when I was only a teenager not even old enough to drive, I attended the US Grand Prix in Detroit, where Marlboro representatives gave me cigarettes, a T-shirt and Ball cap. My mom still has the class photo where I am wearing the shirt. I was a big fan of Niki Lauda and Alain Prost.

Now that I am a parent, the idea that that kind of marketing to kids turns my stomach. I couldn't care less if a grown adult smokes themselves to death...hell I'd be happy if the jerks of this world would smoke ten packs a day. But I don't want tobacco companies telling my kid that smoking isn't bad for him, and putting their logo on his sports idols.

[scuderiafan]

From your writing style I am assuming you are American

Calling out the Americans? From your style I'd assume you're European!

[Hail22]

[Cold Fussion]

I'm not saying it doesn't have an affect, but I don't think the majority of non smokers in today's world would see tobacco advertising and decide they'll start smoking, I think the advertising is more aimed more at the smokers market.

From your writing style I am assuming you are American and that you are old enough to remember the events I present here. I will not take the time to provide references here, but the facts I present can be checked easily enough. Remember the "Big Multi-State Tobacco Settlement" that took place about ten or fifteen years ago? The states had ample evidence of the advertizing strategy of the tobacco firms. The firms had intentionally attempted to deceive the public about the negative health effects of tobacco use and second hand smoke. The firms had intentionally marketed their products to children.

Indeed, in the 1980's when I was only a teenager not even old enough to drive, I attended the US Grand Prix in Detroit, where Marlboro representatives gave me cigarettes, a T-shirt and Ball cap. My mom still has the class photo where I am wearing the shirt. I was a big fan of Niki Lauda and Alain Prost.

Now that I am a parent, the idea that that kind of marketing to kids turns my stomach. I couldn't care less if a grown adult smokes themselves to death...hell I'd be happy if the jerks of this world would smoke ten packs a day. But I don't want tobacco companies telling my kid that smoking isn't bad for him, and putting their logo on his sports idols.

I'm a 21 year old Australian, so my perspective is from a younger generation who grew up in a time where the majority of the people I know don't smoke. As I went through high school in the mid 2000s, it was drilled into us the dangers of smoking, and as a result the majority of people find it fairly repulsive. So I think it would be difficult for tv adverts today to get people to smoke, because it has to counter the large amount of anti smoking stuff we have here. I don't think there's any doubt that tobacco companies are reprehensible, the 90s showed this quite well, but that's not what I'm arguing.

[stefan_]

This small crowd that is truly affected by it and starts smoking because of it will always bring quite a few guys with him under peer pressure. Plus, think of all those people that do smoke and are more likely to smoke Marlboro because they saw it in F1

And that, I think, is 90% of the point of tobacco advertising (as the industry is large enough not to rely on attracting people in smoking), for people to switch to a brand rather than the one they are using regularely.

As I said before, at the end is down to you if you decide to smoke or not, whatever if/how they play with your subconscious or not through advertising or how many tobacco commercials you see.
For example, I grew up with F1 being branded with Marlboro, West, B&H, Winfield, Rothmans and Mild seven - in my family there are a lot of hardcore smokers (my parents, sister, uncle and few more relatives) so I grew up seeing them smoke like hell + a lot of my friends - but guess what; I don't smoke, I don't like it, I'll never do it. Simple as that.

[Moxie]

I'm a 21 year old Australian, so my perspective is from a younger generation who grew up in a time where the majority of the people I know don't smoke. As I went through high school in the mid 2000s, it was drilled into us the dangers of smoking, and as a result the majority of people find it fairly repulsive. So I think it would be difficult for tv adverts today to get people to smoke, because it has to counter the large amount of anti smoking stuff we have here. I don't think there's any doubt that tobacco companies are reprehensible, the 90s showed this quite well, but that's not what I'm arguing.

This is where different governments have different responses. There isn't much of an anti-smoking campaign here. Occasionally, a politician makes news because they call for stiffer heath warnings to be printed on a pack of cigarettes. In the U.S. the anti-smoking forces (government and private sources combined) will never have enough money to sponsor an F1 car. In a lop-sided contest of media manipulation the tobacco companies would win. The attorney generals of the states used the criminal behavior of the firms to negotiate an effective stalemate in the advertizing war.

Yes, the tobacco liveries looked good. Because of the massive spending, these teams produced many world champions and many memorable seasons as JPS battled Marlboro...Camel vs Marlboro...etc. But despite the fond memories of F1 seasons past, I would not want Tobacco to return to advertizing in F1.

[adrianjordan]

http://cdn-9.motorsport.com/static/img/ ... _22556.jpg

We can but hope....I'm imagining a sort of orange-chrome...or the orange they used on the MP4-12C road car...