Author Topic: Interesting Bit of News From the Perfesser (Read 17405 times)

ilb4ever2000 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 14, 2005, 06:53:28 PM »

[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 04:48 PM\']Of course, types of advertising that were forbidden then are now on air including hard liquor, condoms, and bra ads with live models. What a world, what a world.

[snapback]89043[/snapback]

[/quote]

Hard liquor, condoms, and models...Sounds like a night out with [insert wild celebrity here]!

NickintheATL · « **Reply #31 on:** June 14, 2005, 07:56:08 PM »

[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 05:48 PM\']
Of course, types of advertising that were forbidden then are now on air including hard liquor, condoms, and bra ads with live models. What a world, what a world.
[/quote]

About hard liquor... it never was really forbidden, broadcasters chose to be cautious about hard liquor ads back in those days, there never was any law or edict saying it was forbidden.

That Don Guy · « **Reply #32 on:** June 14, 2005, 10:14:08 PM »

[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 12:57 PM\']You're absolutely right Matt, the law as passed by congress used the terms "television" and "radio" in general, it did not apply to any specific method of transmission in any way shape or form, just to the mediums in general terms.

[snapback]89005[/snapback]

[/quote]
Title 15, Section 1335 of the United States Code: "After January 1, 1971, it shall be unlawful to advertise cigarettes and little cigars on any medium of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission."
Section 4402(f) added smokeless tobacco to the ban as of August 27, 1986.

Strange - there doesn't seem to be a ban on cigar or pipe tobacco advertising (anybody else remember Billy Martin shilling Borkum Riff?) anywhere. (A "cigar" is defined as tobacco wrapped in tobacco leaf (tobacco wrapped in anything else is a cigarette) that weighs more than 0.003 pounds.)

The question remains, however: what is considered "advertising"? There was a time when cigarette companies placed signs on baseball stadium scoreboards pretty much for the sole purpose of getting TV exposure (at least one ballpark had a sign that would be displayed on TV whenever a batter was shown stopping at first base).

If worse comes to worse, they managed to remove the announcer's plugs for Winston in the IGAS openings; perhaps they can find a way to cover the podium signs as well, even if it takes a while?

-- Don

zachhoran · « **Reply #33 on:** June 14, 2005, 10:17:24 PM »

[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 09:14 PM\']

Strange - there doesn't seem to be a ban on cigar or pipe tobacco advertising (anybody else remember Billy Martin shilling Borkum Riff?) anywhere. (A "cigar" is defined as tobacco wrapped in tobacco leaf (tobacco wrapped in anything else is a cigarette) that weighs more than 0.003 pounds.)

[snapback]89076[/snapback]

[/quote]

I seem to remember Garcia Vega cigars advertised well after 1971, even into the early 80s.

wschmrdr · « **Reply #34 on:** June 15, 2005, 01:13:17 AM »

I know this isn't GSN, but it's a very similar topic.

Did something similar happen with NASCAR and the "Winston Cup Series"? Also, I've seen a couple times in recent history the cigarette companies putting their logo on the NASCAR's. Is this the same thing?

BTW, I do know someone who remembers when they stopped with cigarette ads. The person says that the very next day there were many Anti-smoking Public Service Announcements during the breaks where there were cigarette ads.

aaron sica · « **Reply #35 on:** June 15, 2005, 08:38:28 AM »

[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 15 2005, 01:13 AM\']
BTW, I do know someone who remembers when they stopped with cigarette ads. The person says that the very next day there were many Anti-smoking Public Service Announcements during the breaks where there were cigarette ads.

[snapback]89092[/snapback]

[/quote]

I wonder how many people actually QUIT smoking once the ads stopped on TV...I believe my father was one of 'em..

NickintheATL · « **Reply #36 on:** June 15, 2005, 08:41:34 AM »

[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 15 2005, 01:13 AM\']
Did something similar happen with NASCAR and the "Winston Cup Series"? Also, I've seen a couple times in recent history the cigarette companies putting their logo on the NASCAR's. Is this the same thing?

[/quote]

How much did Henke pay you to say that? Honestly?

DrBear · « **Reply #37 on:** June 15, 2005, 10:18:57 AM »

The sort of "stealth advertising" allowed as sponsor of, say, Winston Cup was allowed, but limited. Winston had to limit it to one form of racing. Marlboro, on the other hand, chose to sponsor an Indy team. They couldn't have paired that with a team in NASCAR or sponsored a "Marlboro Cup" series. In fact, IIRC, Marlboro had to drop sponsorship of the Indy cars when the U.S. Grand Prix started up again because they also sponsored Formula One cars.

And I think the loophole that allowed, say, a big Marlboro sign behind the catcher or behind the goalposts at a football game has been closed. At least, you don't see as much of it.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #38 on:** June 15, 2005, 10:26:17 AM »

[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 10:14 PM\']If worse comes to worse, they managed to remove the announcer's plugs for Winston in the IGAS openings; perhaps they can find a way to cover the podium signs as well, even if it takes a while?[/quote]
But that's just it. GSN has no interest whatsoever in going to any extra trouble when it comes to those shows. As it is, they're not making any money for the channel and they're taking up two spots that would logically go to infomercials otherwise.

A previous regime DID have such an interest and did what they thought they could do in order to let us see some gems, including lesser-known shows that were completely cigarette-sponsored. That's just no longer the case. I doubt the rules have changed, and if the FCC put any specific heat on GSN the first time GSN ran them, it seems as though we'd have heard about it. For whatever reason they have, Cronin & company don't want to air them, and that's that.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #39 on:** June 16, 2005, 09:00:09 PM »

[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 15 2005, 12:13 AM\']Did something similar happen with NASCAR and the "Winston Cup Series"? Also, I've seen a couple times in recent history the cigarette companies putting their logo on the NASCAR's. Is this the same thing?
[/quote]
Allow me to devert my knowledge here...

The company in question, "Victory" brand cigarettes was not part of the lawsuit, and therefore, are not part of the restrictions laid down by the Feds.

As Dr. Bear (sorry, I don't know your name) alluded; companies had to drop multiple sponsorships, such as Skoal (they stuck with pool) and Copehengan (Rodeo).

That Don Guy · « **Reply #40 on:** June 16, 2005, 09:51:27 PM »

[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 15 2005, 12:13 AM\']I know this isn't GSN, but it's a very similar topic.

Did something similar happen with NASCAR and the "Winston Cup Series"? Also, I've seen a couple times in recent history the cigarette companies putting their logo on the NASCAR's. Is this the same thing?

[snapback]89092[/snapback]

[/quote]
Not quite. Winston could have continued to sponsor the top-level NASCAR series, as tobacco companies could sponsor sporting events where the participants are 18 or older, but they wanted to sponsor some of the lower levels of NASCAR as well, where the only requirement is that you have a driver's license, and either a new law or part of the "big tobacco settlement" prevented them from advertising at those races.

I stumbled across what appears to be an FDA "final rule" from August, 1996, that says that tobacco brands could no longer be advertised on race cars, but I am not certain when, or even if, it actually took effect. It seems strange that tobacco can't advertise on cars but Jack Daniels can.

-- Don

ilb4ever2000 · « **Reply #41 on:** June 16, 2005, 10:55:47 PM »

[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' date=\'Jun 16 2005, 08:51 PM\']It seems strange that tobacco can't advertise on cars but Jack Daniels can.

[snapback]89310[/snapback]

[/quote]

Smoking kills and nothing goes better together than drinking and driving.

sshuffield70 · « **Reply #42 on:** June 17, 2005, 12:28:41 AM »

[quote name=\'ilb4ever2000\' date=\'Jun 16 2005, 09:55 PM\'][quote name=\'That Don Guy\' date=\'Jun 16 2005, 08:51 PM\']It seems strange that tobacco can't advertise on cars but Jack Daniels can.

[snapback]89310[/snapback]

[/quote]

Smoking kills and nothing goes better together than drinking and drinking.

[snapback]89312[/snapback]

[/quote]

Don't you mean drinking and driving? I know some people would be MADD about that.

ilb4ever2000 · « **Reply #43 on:** June 17, 2005, 04:25:12 AM »

[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Jun 16 2005, 11:28 PM\']Don't you mean drinking and driving? I know some people would be MADD about that.

[snapback]89326[/snapback]

[/quote]

Fixed it. Boy, did I screw that one up...

wschmrdr · « **Reply #44 on:** June 17, 2005, 02:08:22 PM »

I think that this should definitely have us stopping to think about the values of American society, "the Land of the Free". You can say some of the "7 dirty words" now as much as you want on the TV, but the second something like the Batman and Robin MG question goes out, everyone gets in a big whoop. You can show all the killing and violence you want on TV, but once you see a woman's boob, once again, big whoop. You can have all the Budweiser and drinking and carrying on you want, but the second a cigarette comes out, well, you get the idea.

I realize GSN doesn't want to take the time out to fix something in order to make it politically correct, and honestly, I don't blame them. I think it's merely a question of our society.