12/21/24
November 10, 2004
Now liquor really is quicker: NASCAR lifted its ban on hard alcohol advertising on Tuesday. The race circuit has long allowed beer and malt liquor sponsorships (see Matt Kenseth in the Smirnoff ICE car), but now the door is open for everything. At least one car will already be sponsored by a whiskey next season, and some people think it's high time (ha!) for the change. Is this a responsible move by NASCAR?
Here's a connection. Kids who like Terry Labonte eat Frosted Flakes and Corn Flakes exclusively.
posted by YukonGold at 07:35 AM on November 11, 2004
If he gets sponsored by Wild Turkey next year there's gonna be a lot of drunk middle schools in the Carolinas!
posted by YukonGold at 07:37 AM on November 11, 2004
Damn, I wish I could find an article I read this summer about NASCAR fans who will switch the brand of coffee they drink if their favourite driver gets a different coffee sponsor. And that they truely believe that by doing so they are helping the driver. Sure, I'll conceed that by buying the sponsors' product the sponsor is likely to continue supporting the driving "team," but these people actually said they think THEY are helping the driver WIN by drinking the coffee. I can see it now, a bunch of teenagers doing shots so Dale Jr. will be the first to drive around the circle the most times. *shakes head and goes back to drinking coffee*
posted by scully at 08:25 AM on November 11, 2004
Reminds me of the Onion headline "Really fun toy ruined because of stupid dead kid". Has it come to this? If you're absolutely dumb enough to believe that you should drink more alcohol because it's on the side of Terry Labonte's ride than frankly you deserve to get a DUI. Advertising should not be regulated beyond acceptable norms (i.e. Porn websites might be not so good an idea). Take a little personal responsibilty with morning consumerism. So I say let them advertise/sponsor. Perhaps this will help thin out the population a bit.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:48 AM on November 11, 2004
....atleast in the red states.
posted by garfield at 12:18 PM on November 11, 2004
Weedy, why is porn more objectionable in this situation than alcohol? Both are legally sold products with regulations governing their sale to minors and, in porn's favor, usage does not usually lead to trouble while operating vehicles and other heavy equipment. Unless you're using it while operating...
posted by billsaysthis at 01:14 PM on November 11, 2004
Yep. Keep both hands on the wheel.
posted by scully at 02:50 PM on November 11, 2004
It's not like cigarettes haven't been marketed towards kids for years, this doesn't really change anything. The brand loyalty that exists in NASCAR is a discernable trait and I'm sure those companies will be vying for position in the field (ha!) It's very strange though that the year it stopped being called the "Winston Cup" is also the year that individual brands were allowed to infiltrate the NASCAR marketplace. Score one for Camel and Marlboro.
posted by YukonGold at 04:43 PM on November 11, 2004
As an ex-smoker, I can tell you that seeing the various F1 cars advertising tobacco doesn't make me want to smoke. Seeing the anti-smoking ads on TV, however, does. I never crave a cigarette after F1. (Just a very large anti-depressant.) But I see the anti-smoking stuff and the cravings hit. I read a report a few years ago that said all the "If you're under 18 you shouldn't smoke" *wink* ads the tobacco companies were running were actually increasing the number of teen smokers. I know the rules in the US are a tobacco brand can only be associated with one form. That's why, when F1 came to Indy, Ferrari couldn't run their Marlboro advertising, because Chip Ganassi's team already runs it in IRL. Marlboro and Camel are NOT in NASCAR as far as I'm aware. I don't pay really close attention, but off the top of my head I have never seen either of those two mentioned anywhere.
posted by Drood at 09:42 PM on November 11, 2004
Billy - the only reason to not allow porn is because of the very issue of appropriateness. Bible-Belt-Super-Christians are just not ready. Their heads would explode or there'd be a rash of suicide bombers in Taledega. And think of the kids man! Though if it came down to it - I'm more for all advertising is allowed and then the stupid companies can join the stupid consumers in ethier heaven, jail or recievership. Besides, if you're a porn baron, is NASCAR really the best place to spend your marketing dollar? Maybe, I don't know, it's uncharted territory.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:01 AM on November 12, 2004
Besides, if you're a porn baron, is NASCAR really the best place to spend your marketing dollar? Given the devotion of NASCAR fans as already pointed out in this thread, I'd say yes. Given the sales of porn products all over the US, I'll add that most self-identified Christians are hypocrits (with Jim Baker and that other televangelist who got caught as leading examples).
posted by billsaysthis at 01:21 PM on November 12, 2004
It's not exactly porn, but the Hooters car is for sale:
"A car? Larry Bean's prized possession is more than just a car. A labor of love and a 3,500 pound work of art, Bean's project is powerful enough to rattle windows or to bring mist to a strong man's eyes. The Ford "Underbird" driven to the NASCAR championship by the late Alan Kulwicki and restored by Bean is a car the way the Sistine Chapel is a big church, the way Tolstoy was a long-winded writer or the way Disney is a moderately successful entertainment company. This car is something special."I doubt we'd see any porn-sponsored cars, but not because of religion reasons... porn is probably the only industry that doesn't need advertising.
posted by dusted at 04:15 PM on November 12, 2004
It never ceases to amaze me. Formula One has been getting shit for years over tobacco advertising, but alcohol is just fine. I think it's completely hypocritical to say that tobacco advertising leads people to smoke, but then not see anything wrong with implicitly linking drinking and driving in a glamourous. If people are stupid enough to go "I want a cigarette" after seeing a Marlboro logo on a car, then surely these same idiots would make that connection.