Ferrari remove the barcode from the F10 livery

i

On 6 May 2010, Ferrari quietly removed a barcode-style graphic from their F10 livery after the FIA examined whether it amounted to hidden advertising for Marlboro. The design had appeared on the engine cover and, depending on who was looking at it and how generously they were feeling, either resembled a cigarette packet barcode or was simply a piece of abstract geometry that happened to resemble one. Ferrari said it was the latter. The FIA was not entirely convinced. The barcode came off.

A relationship with a long history

Ferrari and Marlboro had been formally linked since 1984, making it one of the longest-running and most financially significant sponsorship partnerships in the history of motorsport.

For most of that period the arrangement was uncomplicated in the sense that tobacco branding was simply part of Formula 1, as unremarkable as any other sponsor name on any other car.

The red and white chevron sat on Ferraris driven by Alboreto, Prost, Schumacher and Häkkinen’s rivals for years without generating much regulatory anxiety.

That changed as tobacco advertising bans accumulated across Europe and then globally through the late 1990s and 2000s. The European Union directive that effectively ended visible tobacco branding in Formula 1 came into force for the 2005 season, and most teams removed tobacco logos from their liveries accordingly. Ferrari and Marlboro kept their commercial relationship but had to find ways of maintaining its value without putting a logo on the car.

What followed was a series of design choices that generated recurring controversy about where the line between sponsorship and subliminal advertising actually sat.

The 2007 episode

The barcode dispute of 2010 had a direct predecessor.

In 2007, Ferrari ran a livery design on the F2007 that featured a pattern of white shapes on the engine cover which, when photographed at certain angles and speeds, appeared to some observers to resolve into the Marlboro chevron logo. The British American Racing Health Secretary at the time raised the issue publicly, and the FIA investigated.

Ferrari maintained the design was abstract. The FIA eventually concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish a deliberate attempt at subliminal advertising but made clear it was watching the situation. The design was modified. The matter was considered, somewhat uncomfortably, closed.

The episode had established that the territory was live and that regulators were paying attention.

The F10 barcode

The barcode on the F10 was a different graphic but raised the same fundamental question. A thin striped pattern appeared on the car’s bodywork, and its resemblance to the kind of barcode printed on the side of a Marlboro packet was close enough to attract scrutiny again.

i

Whether this was intentional subliminal design, an unfortunate coincidence of geometry, or something in between was precisely the sort of question that proved almost impossible to answer definitively.

The FIA examined the design and applied pressure. Ferrari, rather than contest the finding publicly, removed the graphic ahead of the Turkish Grand Prix weekend. The team’s public position was that they were cooperating voluntarily and that the design had not been intended as tobacco advertising. There was no formal penalty. There was no prolonged public dispute. The barcode was simply gone.

The wider regulatory problem

What made the Marlboro-Ferrari situation persistently awkward was the nature of the commercial relationship itself. Marlboro remained a major Ferrari partner long after its logo had disappeared from the car, which meant the value of the arrangement had to come from somewhere other than simple brand visibility. Exactly how that value was generated was, naturally, something neither party was eager to detail in public.

The FIA’s position was that it would police visible and demonstrable attempts to circumvent the advertising ban, but that it could not regulate against the existence of a commercial relationship or against design choices that fell short of provable intent. This left a grey area wide enough to cause repeated difficulty and to generate the kind of media coverage that served nobody particularly well, least of all the sport’s broader relationship with tobacco money at a time when F1 was already sensitive about the subject.

For critics, each episode suggested the line was being tested deliberately. For Ferrari and Marlboro, each episode ended with a modification and a denial and no formal finding of wrongdoing. The cycle had a somewhat familiar rhythm by 2010.

After the barcode

The removal of the F10 graphic did not end the relationship between Ferrari and Marlboro’s parent company Philip Morris International, which has continued in various forms.

i

The nature of the partnership has evolved, with PMI eventually becoming a more openly identified presence again as the regulatory environment around tobacco advertising shifted and as the company moved towards promoting alternative nicotine products.

The Ferrari livery in more recent seasons has carried PMI branding for Mission Winnow, a corporate identity that itself attracted regulatory scrutiny before being modified.

The barcode incident of May 2010 was, in that sense, neither a beginning nor an ending. It was one episode in a long, commercially significant and occasionally farcical argument about what constitutes advertising when a logo is no longer technically present.

FAQ

What was the barcode on Ferrari’s F10? A striped graphic design that appeared on the Ferrari F10’s bodywork in the early part of the 2010 season. Its resemblance to the barcode on a Marlboro cigarette packet led the FIA to investigate whether it constituted disguised tobacco advertising. Ferrari removed it voluntarily in May 2010.

Had Ferrari faced similar accusations before? Yes. In 2007 the FIA investigated a design on the F2007 that some observers believed could resolve into the Marlboro chevron logo under certain conditions. That design was also modified following scrutiny, though no formal penalty was issued in either case.

Is Ferrari still connected to Marlboro’s parent company? Philip Morris International has maintained a commercial relationship with Ferrari beyond the period of visible tobacco branding. The arrangement has taken different forms over the years, most recently through PMI’s Mission Winnow branding, which itself attracted regulatory attention before being adjusted.

See a mistake? Let us know