Volume 1
The tobacco industry and the health risks of smoking : second report / Health Committee.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Health Committee
- Date:
- 2000
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: The tobacco industry and the health risks of smoking : second report / Health Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.
45/92 page 43
![99. Our review of the copious evidence from the advertising agencies, which includes substantial quantities of market research, leads us to conclude that the advertising agencies have connived in promoting tobacco consumption, have shamelessly exploited smoking as an aspirational pursuit in ways which inevitably make it attractive to children, and have attempted to use their creative talents to undermine Government policy and evade regulation. We welcome the Government’s commitment to end all forms of tobacco advertising and sponsorship. Formula One and sponsorship 100.The advertising papers indicated to us that sponsorship is used by the industry because of its tremendous potential to associate aspirational images with smoking. Formula One motor racing is the most blatant example of this so we paid particular attention to this area. For example, research conducted for Gallaher identified “More active sports, with potential to create a more dynamic, ~ exciting brand image’’, which include: “Formula One, Big boat sailing, Basket ball, Ice Hockey”. The image of Formula One is then described in more detail as “international, glamorous, challenging, fast, furious, dangerous, living life to the full and living life on the edge”. The research concluded that Formula One can make the B&H brand more “dynamic”, “macho” and “youthful”.'”> This once more flagrantly disregards the spirit of the voluntary agreement. A further market research report concluded, in similar vein, that Formula One sponsorship “makes the brand very powerful” and lends associations with “young, fast, racy, adult, exciting, aspirational, but attainable environments”.'” 101. Mr Max Mosley, the President of Formula One’s governing body, the FIA, told us that the percentage of sponsorship of Formula One teams made up by tobacco firms was diminishing. Nevertheless he admitted that the teams received “more money ... from the tobacco industry than we could if we had to get the same sponsorship money on the open market”. In his view this was because “the tobacco people really have nowhere else to go”.'*° Mr Mosley estimated that tobacco sponsorship of Formula One probably amounted to £200-300 million per annum.'*' In return for this expenditure, the tobacco companies obtained access to an annual television audience of 40 billion, “the largest television audience in sport”.'® 102. The advertising papers we examined indicated that advertising companies did not really distinguish between advertising and sponsorship. An internal CDP memorandum exulted in the apparent value for money to Gallaher of sponsoring the Jordan racing team: “As I’m sure you were aware there was excellent coverage of the new Jordan car last night on both the Nine o’clock News and the News at Ten ... If we assume that the coverage equated to a 60” commercial on each station, I’ve estimated the equivalent advertising value to be £185,000. When the value of additional news slots on Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky are added in, I expect the figure would exceed £250,000. Not bad to start off with!””'® Another document prepared for Benson & Hedges described the “natural fit” between Formula One and “cigarette sponsorship” since Formula One was “international” “glamorous” and involved “rich people”.'** In our view, such connotations blatantly subvert the attempts of successive Governments to dissociate smoking from aspiration and glamour. They also expose as pusillanimous the decision of the present Government to agree to the exemption for Formula One from the EU Directive banning advertising and sponsorship until 2006. 103. Mr Mosley argued that if the EU had banned tobacco sponsorship of Formula One earlier than the proposed date of 2006, the teams would have sought to hold more races outside the EU, tobacco sponsorship of the teams would have remained in place, and the cars would still have been broadcast to the same European audience. This argument closely follows the Government’s own defence of its position in its reply to our First Report of the present Parliament.'*° www.fia.com [1999]. 183 Fy, p.563. 184 Fy., pp.561-62. See Government Response to the First Report of the Health Committee, Tobacco Advertising and the Proposed EC](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32221083_0001_0045.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
