Last updated: April 30, 2010
Source: Times Online
One of Britain’s most eminent physicians has written to the Department of Health urging the Government to open an inquiry into whether Ferrari is in breach of the EU-wide tobacco sponsorship ban, The Times has learnt.
Professor John Britton, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and director of its Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, has also written to the BBC asking it to consider whether it is appropriate to screen Formula One racing while the team stands accused of potential subliminal advertising by the European Commission.
The row centres on Ferrari’s use of a red, white and black barcode which is emblazoned on the racing team’s cars and its drivers’ overalls. Both the European Commission and advertising experts argue that the barcode is designed to remind viewers of a packet of Marlboro cigarettes.
Under 2002 law passed in both Britain and in Brussels, it is an offence for a tobacco company to sponsor a sporting event.
In a letter to Mark Thomspon, the Director General of the BBC, Professor Britton, an epidemiogist at the University of Nottingham, said: “I write to ask you whether in your view, broadcasting coverage of the Ferrari car and related branding in the forthcoming Spanish Grand Prix is in full compliance with both UK law, and the BBC charter?”
Formula One teams are preparing to fly to Spain for the start of the European leg of the Grand Prix season next weekend.
Earlier this week, a spokesman for the European Public Health Commissioner said he thought that the barcode constituted potential subliminal marketing. He said that while he did not think it constituted a breach of EU law, he urged the British and Spanish governments to see if it contravened their own domestic legislation.
The spokesman said: “It needs to be checked against the law of the Member State in question (here Spain & UK), which could have more stringent rules than the EU legislation requires.”
To date, the Department of Health and Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, have declined to comment.
Philip Morris, the world’s second biggest tobacco firm and the owner of Marlboro cigarettes, extended its financial backing of Ferrari until 2011. It is understood that the ten year deal is worth around $1 billion.
Ferrari has consistently denied that the barcode on the car represents subliminal advertising and insists that it is a design feature on the car which forms part of the vehicle’s “livery”.
Philip Morris also argues that it is “confident” that their relationship with Ferrari is well within the law and that: “The Formula One Grand Prix in the UK does not involve any race cars, team apparel, equipment or track signage carrying tobacco product branding. The same is true for all other Formula One races across the world.”
However, Don Elgie, chief executive of Creston – the media group which owns the advertising agency DLKW -told The Times that he thought the barcode constituted subliminal advertising.
Mr Elgie added: “I think it’s a no brainer. Marlboro may be working within the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Why else would you put a barcode there? It is there to make you think of Marlboro cigarettes. If I was the account director for Marlboro, I would try and do that.”
The British Formula One race at Silverstone is scheduled for July 11.
Subliminal advertising is where a brand is so well-known and powerful that a consumer can be reminded of it by subtle prompts, but without actually seeing the product itself.
A spokesman for the FIA, the governing body for Formula I, said: “Formula 1 advertising and sponsorship must comply within the law of the land.”
However, it is understood that should further questions be raised about the legality of livery, the F1 governing body would have an obligation to look into it further.
A spokesman for the FIA, the governing body for Formula I, said: “Formula 1 advertising and sponsorship must comply within the law of the land.”
However, it is understood that should further questions be raised about the legality of livery, the F1 governing body would have an obligation to look into it further.