It might be in N's interest to bring back tobacco as a sponsor, most of the fans attending events are smokers and drinkers and hold blue collar jobs. It only makes sense to have sponsorship that best represents the fans.
> It might be in N's interest to bring back tobacco as a sponsor, most > of the fans attending events are smokers and drinkers and hold blue > collar jobs. It only makes sense to have sponsorship that best > represents the fans.
But there are fewer smokers every day. It would be a losing proposition. Why do you think Winston got out? Nascar didn't fire them.
I don't believe Winston left based upon number of smokers (in fact, these companies are still making big profits). And Winston didn't neccessarily get fired by NASCAR. Winston left because of the politically correct, federally drafted and instituted tobacco advertising legislation.
"Nancy2" <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
> It might be in N's interest to bring back tobacco as a sponsor, most > of the fans attending events are smokers and drinkers and hold blue > collar jobs. It only makes sense to have sponsorship that best > represents the fans.
But there are fewer smokers every day. It would be a losing proposition. Why do you think Winston got out? Nascar didn't fire them.
>I don't believe Winston left based upon number of smokers (in fact, these >companies are still making big profits). And Winston didn't neccessarily >get fired by NASCAR. Winston left because of the politically correct, >federally drafted and instituted tobacco advertising legislation.
> "Nancy2" <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message > news:0bd0801a-bde7-4c6d-8484-d2e3caf969ca@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 24, 5:31 am, Clutch Cargo wrote: >> It might be in N's interest to bring back tobacco as a sponsor, most >> of the fans attending events are smokers and drinkers and hold blue >> collar jobs. It only makes sense to have sponsorship that best >> represents the fans.
> But there are fewer smokers every day. It would be a losing > proposition. Why do you think Winston got out? Nascar didn't fire > them.
> N.
The tobacco companies are much better off spending their marketing dollars overseas where smoking American cigarettes is seen as the height of sophistication.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:04:10 -0600, "Rod's work news"
<rod.graml...@ualberta.ca> wrote: >I don't believe Winston left based upon number of smokers (in fact, these >companies are still making big profits). And Winston didn't neccessarily get >fired by NASCAR. Winston left because of the politically correct, federally >drafted and instituted tobacco advertising legislation.
That's why they left...part of the "Big Tobacco" settlement was that tobacco advertising *had* to get out of most all forms of every sport. NASCAR nor Winston had a choice.
Apparently smokeless tobacco is still in the gray area, see some of their stuff "here and there", but not so much in the big leagues.
And of course, that's only in the US and certain other European Countries. Watch F1 racing, and when you see the full Marlboro labels on the Ferraris (and not just the subtle logo), they're in a country that doesn't shive a git about the US's tobacco legislation that outlaws tobacco advertising.
>"Nancy2" <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message >news:0bd0801a-bde7-4c6d-8484-d2e3caf969ca@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 24, 5:31 am, Clutch Cargo wrote: >> It might be in N's interest to bring back tobacco as a sponsor, most >> of the fans attending events are smokers and drinkers and hold blue >> collar jobs. It only makes sense to have sponsorship that best >> represents the fans.
>But there are fewer smokers every day. It would be a losing >proposition. Why do you think Winston got out? Nascar didn't fire >them.
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:04:10 -0600, "Rod's work news" > <rod.graml...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>I don't believe Winston left based upon number of smokers (in fact, these >>companies are still making big profits). And Winston didn't neccessarily >>get >>fired by NASCAR. Winston left because of the politically correct, >>federally >>drafted and instituted tobacco advertising legislation.
> That's why they left...part of the "Big Tobacco" settlement was that > tobacco advertising *had* to get out of most all forms of every sport. > NASCAR nor Winston had a choice.
SimRacer wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:04:10 -0600, "Rod's work news" > <rod.graml...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
>> I don't believe Winston left based upon number of smokers (in fact, these >> companies are still making big profits). And Winston didn't neccessarily get >> fired by NASCAR. Winston left because of the politically correct, federally >> drafted and instituted tobacco advertising legislation.
> That's why they left...part of the "Big Tobacco" settlement was that > tobacco advertising *had* to get out of most all forms of every sport. > NASCAR nor Winston had a choice.
> Apparently smokeless tobacco is still in the gray area, see some of > their stuff "here and there", but not so much in the big leagues.
> And of course, that's only in the US and certain other European > Countries. Watch F1 racing, and when you see the full Marlboro labels > on the Ferraris (and not just the subtle logo), they're in a country > that doesn't shive a git about the US's tobacco legislation that > outlaws tobacco advertising.
That varies from country to country. IIRC, the Germans don't allow tobacco advertising. Three's at least one other, but I can't remember which one(s). (its an age thing)
>> "Nancy2" <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message >> news:0bd0801a-bde7-4c6d-8484-d2e3caf969ca@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 24, 5:31 am, Clutch Cargo wrote: >>> It might be in N's interest to bring back tobacco as a sponsor, most >>> of the fans attending events are smokers and drinkers and hold blue >>> collar jobs. It only makes sense to have sponsorship that best >>> represents the fans. >> But there are fewer smokers every day. It would be a losing >> proposition. Why do you think Winston got out? Nascar didn't fire >> them.
Nancy2 wrote: > On Jul 24, 5:31 am, Clutch Cargo wrote: >> It might be in N's interest to bring back tobacco as a sponsor, most >> of the fans attending events are smokers and drinkers and hold blue >> collar jobs. It only makes sense to have sponsorship that best >> represents the fans.
> But there are fewer smokers every day. It would be a losing > proposition. Why do you think Winston got out? Nascar didn't fire > them.
> N.
I recall that there was some gubmint pressure for Winston to end Cup sponsorship.
IMO, the diminishing number of smokers vs. tobacco sponsorship is probably one of those chicken / egg situations. I think that tobacco was banned from TV and radio sponsorship about the same time as the anti-smoking campaign started to really ramp up.
> SimRacer wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:04:10 -0600, "Rod's work news" > > <rod.graml...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
> >> I don't believe Winston left based upon number of smokers (in fact, these > >> companies are still making big profits). And Winston didn't neccessarily get > >> fired by NASCAR. Winston left because of the politically correct, federally > >> drafted and instituted tobacco advertising legislation.
> > That's why they left...part of the "Big Tobacco" settlement was that > > tobacco advertising *had* to get out of most all forms of every sport. > > NASCAR nor Winston had a choice.
> > Apparently smokeless tobacco is still in the gray area, see some of > > their stuff "here and there", but not so much in the big leagues.
> > And of course, that's only in the US and certain other European > > Countries. Watch F1 racing, and when you see the full Marlboro labels > > on the Ferraris (and not just the subtle logo), they're in a country > > that doesn't shive a git about the US's tobacco legislation that > > outlaws tobacco advertising.
> That varies from country to country. IIRC, the Germans don't allow > tobacco advertising. Three's at least one other, but I can't remember > which one(s). (its an age thing)
> >> "Nancy2" <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message > >>news:0bd0801a-bde7-4c6d-8484-d2e3caf969ca@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >> On Jul 24, 5:31 am, Clutch Cargo wrote: > >>> It might be in N's interest to bring back tobacco as a sponsor, most > >>> of the fans attending events are smokers and drinkers and hold blue > >>> collar jobs. It only makes sense to have sponsorship that best > >>> represents the fans. > >> But there are fewer smokers every day. It would be a losing > >> proposition. Why do you think Winston got out? Nascar didn't fire > >> them.
> >> N.
The Japs eat cigs for breakfast like we eat cereal. True!
> And of course, that's only in the US and certain other European > Countries. Watch F1 racing, and when you see the full Marlboro labels > on the Ferraris (and not just the subtle logo), they're in a country > that doesn't shive a git about the US's tobacco legislation that > outlaws tobacco advertising.
Best was a couple of years back when the German brand "Wests" was sponsoring one of the teams (Williams?). When they went to a place were tobacco advertising wasn't allowed, the had the cars painted up exactly the same, with "Easts" as the name.
SimRacer wrote: >That's why they left...part of the "Big Tobacco" settlement was that >tobacco advertising *had* to get out of most all forms of every sport. >NASCAR nor Winston had a choice.
"The version I heard was," they would have been allowed to sponsor the Cup series, as the age limit is 18, but Winston wanted to stay in regional racing (e.g. Winston West) as well, where all you need is a driver's license, and the new laws do not allow them to sponsor anything where someone under 18 can compete.
(And add Canada to the list of countries that don't have tobacco sponsorship; in fact, women's professional golf had to change one of its major tournaments because the one held in Canada was sponsored by a tobacco company that was no longer allowed to sponsor it.)
