Carlos Sainz Jnr, Ferrari, Circuit de Catalunya, 2021

Mission Winnow logos removed from Ferrari’s cars again

2021 French Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Ferrari sponsor and Marlboro cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris has pulled the logos of its controversial Mission Winnow programme from the team’s cars, citing “mistrust and an abundance of scepticism towards our industry.”

The logo will not appear on the team’s cars at the French Grand Prix or any other races in the European Union, PMI’s vice-president of partnerships and engagement programs, Riccardo Parino, confirmed.

“The Mission Winnow logo will not be featured on the Scuderia Ferrari livery during race in the EU, starting with the French Grand Prix this weekend” he said.

PMI’s Mission Winnow logos first appeared on Ferrari’s cars at the 2018 Japanese Grand Prix. They have attracted criticism from consumer rights groups who claim the programme is an attempt to circumvent rules banning the promotion of tobacco products.

“Mission Winnow respects all laws and regulations and continuously strives to find distinctive ways to drive dialogue, free of ideology, and build strong partnerships that are rooted in shared values,” Parino continued.

“We acknowledge the mistrust and abundance of scepticism towards our industry. However, our intention is not to create controversy around the application of the logo but rather focus on re-framing global conversations, building communities, and supporting innovative ideas that drive positive change.”

Following their introduction, Mission Winnow logos appeared on Ferrari’s cars at less than half of all races in 2019. In 2020, following a complaint to the Italian government by the group Codacons, Ferrari did not display Mission Winnow logos on their cars at any of the 17 races.

The branding returned at the beginning of this season including a new, bright green logo on the car’s engine covers. This has already appeared at several races in the European Union.

McLaren, the only other team to feature logos associated with a tobacco producer, has also revealed changes to its livery for this weekend. The team will carry a tribute to its late shareholder Mansour Ojjeh at the French Grand Prix.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 French Grand Prix

Browse all 2021 French Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

40 comments on “Mission Winnow logos removed from Ferrari’s cars again”

  1. I’m sure the other teams are really happy about Ferrari and McLaren keeping Formula 1 in bad reputation for pushing nicotine dealer’s agendas.

    1. @proesterchen
      Just about as happy as they are with F1’s title sponsor being one of the biggest (if not the biggest) alcohol producing companies in the world.
      Who cares?! It’s not like there is any negative link between drving a motorized vehicle and consuming alcohol, isn’t there?!

  2. One glorious day all of the tobacco and cigarette producers will go out of business. Can’t happen soon enough.

    1. @davethedrummer It would be nice to think that, but it would of course cause issues with many governments that take huge tax receipts to pay for other public services on each ack of cigarettes. Do Governments really want smokers to stop?

      1. Yes they want because the medical costs are higher then the tax income.

      2. I am pretty sure most actually would @ahxshades because the cost it puts into the health care system from extra cancer, heart issues and other related health struggles is quite a bit higher than what governments rake in from taxes on them.

        1. @macleod, @bascb – you may be right – I have had a read around the subject this afternoon, and found numbers that show £12bn income from Cigarettes (including VAT) and a cost to treat all cancers (some of course not caused by smoking) of £6 – 7bn. But that wouldn’t include ancillary issues like COPD and other breathing problems, so the difference would be less than that – and maybe quite close to the £12bn income possibly.

        2. @bascb

          This has been studied scientifically.

          The extra healthcare costs are more than offset by the reduced life span, making smokers slightly cheaper with regard to healthcare. However, the major government benefit is that smokers get far less pension. So your argument is a poor one, as even without high taxes on cigs, smoking is financially good for government. The main downsides of smoking are the consequences for the person and those near them.

  3. This is not an advert BTW.

    1. Probably that maximum exposure for a sponsor is reached by being on the car 75% of the time, and mentioned continuously the 25% it’s not.

  4. The whole thing always makes me laugh. When they get asked what Mission Winnow is they just fire off as many buzz-words as they can think of!

    We strive to find distinctive ways to drive dialogue, free of ideology, and build strong partnerships that are rooted in shared values focussing on re-framing global conversations, building communities, and supporting innovative ideas that drive positive change.”

    You’d expect after a couple of years, they’d be able to point us towards a single thing they’ve achieved but it always seems to be lacking… I’ve never heard of Mission Winnow outside of F1 and Ferrari. What communities have they built? What partnerships have they created? What positive change have they supported?

    1. I had Bingo halfway through that sentence;)

  5. “We acknowledge the mistrust and abundance of scepticism towards our industry. However, our intention is not to create controversy around the application of the logo but rather focus on re-framing global conversations, building communities, and supporting innovative ideas that drive positive change.”

    Chapter 1 on how to say a lot without saying anything…

    1. @fer-no65 – And the only thing they did actually say was a lie. Of course they want to create controversy around the application of the logo. That’s the whole point! That’s why they painted it bright green on the side of the car! No-one looked at that and thought “that looks nice.” They knew it looked horrible and that would get people talking about them.

      1. Nobody looks at it and thinks “tobacco” either.

        1. Well you did….. you just wrote “tobacco” and now here we are discussing it. That’s the whole point. It gets people talking about the ban on tobacco advertising, Philip Morris and so on….

          They say they want to “find distinctive ways to drive dialogue” and here it is. They’ve got us talking about something we wouldn’t be talking about if that they weren’t allowed to advertise on the car.

          We could be talking about the other work Mission Winnow does but…. what do they do?

          1. @petebaldwin It’s all a case of whether there really is such a thing as bad publicity. It could be argued both ways.

          2. There’s not really much to discuss.
            It isn’t a tobacco logo and it doesn’t represent tobacco products or brands in any way.
            As such, there’s no reason why it should be removed or even opposed.
            The only link is that this logo is owned by a company that also owns tobacco brands – but that link isn’t at all present or alluded to on the car or in F1 in any way. It’s perfectly legal and also morally acceptable.

            As for what else the branding supposedly stands for, if anything…. Who cares?
            They aren’t allowed to advertise ‘banned’ products on F1 cars, and they don’t.

      2. When I read a statement from Mission Winnow, I feel like at the end of X-Files… The truth about their mission may be out there, but after all these years I still don’t know what it is.

    2. they do sell smoke after all….

  6. As they say, cancer cures Everything.

  7. mistrust and abundance of scepticism towards our industry

    This is what happens when you kill people to make money.

    1. And yet here we are talking about them. They were successful again.

    2. Who did they kill?
      People who voluntarily purchased and consumed products known to be unhealthy and dangerous in any quantity?

      1. Seriously? We’re 60 years beyond these companies knowing the effects of the products they were and are still selling, on their customers and anyone around them, and you’re here trying to relitigate them?

        1. Those companies know the effects, and so do consumers. That information is unavoidable now.
          Despite that knowledge, people are still buying and consuming…
          Who’s really to blame?

          Would you also blame an alcohol producer when someone willingly gets drunk? How about a pharmaceutical company when someone deliberately overdoses?
          Individuals have the power over what they consume and in what quantity.

          1. In a certain way you are right. However we’re not discussing bread or milk here but addictive products. If you advertise the use of such products and consumers try them, you may have caught yourself a long/lifetime user. What I’m saying is (unfortunately) it’s not as black and white as you suggest.

          2. Your assertion that “Individuals have the power over what they consume and in what quantity.” is plainly wrong, as anyone who has ever found themselves on the receiving end of second-hand smoking can attest to.

            Beyond that, even the underlying idea is fundamentally flawed, as the addictive qualities of nicotine-based products have clearly been shown.

      2. You conveniently forgot about the 600,000 people who die of passive smoking EVERY YEAR – including 200,000 children.

        Or do you see that as voluntary consumption as well?

        1. Are the tobacco producers entirely responsible for those deaths, or does at least some (or all) of the responsibility fall to the people who actually purchased and consumed those products?

          I’m not saying the product isn’t awful – put people are still buying and using it.
          A tobacco company can not and does not force people to smoke.

          1. I thought your argument was: cigarettes only kill “ People who voluntarily purchased and consumed products known to be unhealthy and dangerous”.
            But maybe I was mistaken by the fact that you used those words.

            I wonder how you wiggle your position when I argue that a producer is responsible for known ‘collateral damage’ without taking appropriate mitigation measures.
            How often did you see tobacco companies advertise that their ‘voluntary’ suicide lottery players should not smoke in busy bars and clubs or in cars when other people are present?
            They even struggle to admit that smoking around children will harm them.

          2. Don’t they?
            Addiction is not something to ignore.

  8. Came here to say to people who moan about it, one way to stop is not paying attention. Last time I clicked on winnow stuff

  9. Unpopular opinion. F1 was way better when it was flushed in tobacco money. A lot less pay drivers and teams struggling. I don’t think we’d have some of the great drivers from humble origins like Fernando, Lewis, Kimi, even Michael without tobacco money. The grid would probably be full of billionaires kids. That said I’m ok to get rid of the advertising. A lot less kids smoking

  10. “Mission Winnow respects all laws and regulations and continuously strives to find distinctive ways to drive dialogue, free of ideology, and build strong partnerships that are rooted in shared values,”

    “We acknowledge the mistrust and abundance of scepticism towards our industry. However, our intention is not to create controversy around the application of the logo but rather focus on re-framing global conversations, building communities, and supporting innovative ideas that drive positive change.”

    Have you ever heard a more meaningless load of PR nonsense in all of your life?!

    What they should have said:

    “We make cigarettes and have traditionally been linked with formula 1. Because of changes to the law we’ve had to find a sneaky way of advertising on F1 cars. We’ve been rumbled.”

  11. I laugh when I read mission Winnow’s meaningless business jargon, but there’s always a bit of hypocrisy about advertising in F1.

    Aramco is the Saudi regime’s cash cow,
    Ineos is involved in refineries and fracking, just to mention a couple of examples. We have to understand that a lot of companies are “sportswashing” their grey business, especially in glamour sports like F1. Where should we draw a line?

  12. Don’t let the Mission Winnow logo be there for the rest of the season.

  13. Ferrari sponsor and Marlboro cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris has pulled the logos of its controversial Mission Winnow programme from the team’s cars, citing “mistrust and an abundance of scepticism towards our industry.

    Cough cough…

    But, they will be back again onto the Ferrari. Up in smoke.

  14. I really don’t care if they are advertising anything or not but that green spot on the Fezzas looks godawful, I’d love to see it go

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.