Tobacco Documents Online

) ) ) BROWN & WILLI~SON TCBA~]CO CO. December 221 1978 A QUALITATIVE S~UDY PROJECT "G'~ - 9hoenix, Arizona December 6, 7, & 8, 1978 == j NICHOLAS RESEARCH INTERNATrONAL, INC, J '\\ 535 C.ATHEOSAL pAR,~WAV NEW YORK GITY 10025 (212) 666-4289

INTRODUCTION TABLE OF C~NTENTS E~rpose .................... i Method ..................... 2 A Word of Caution ............... 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............. !c MARKETING IMPLICATIONS. , DETAILED FINDinGS .......... Ii ..... 17 CONCEPT STATEMENT .............. 58 DISCUSSION GUIDE ...... 59 I i \

m / /- / ".

PURPOSE The objective of the Phoenix Project "G" study was to ex- amine the smoking habits and attitudes of users of filtered cigarettesj to probe their thoughts about what brands were availabl~ to them, about their futube as smokers: about tar and nicotine and gas. in addition, a large part of the survey aimed at disccvering feelings abo~t these people's interaction w~th the non~ckJmg wc~id around them. Fi~a]ly~ infoz*matlon concerning reaction to a new type o{ low tar nlgarette~ Straights, was to be monitored. 0

[ [ METHOD Six focus ~roup sessions were conducted in Phoenix, Arizena~ December 6, 7, and 8. Two of the groups were mnde up of smokers of cigarettes wiLh in excess of 16 M~. tarI two of users of cigarettes in the 10-15 Mg. tar range, and two of consumers of eigareLtes in the 9 Mg.- and-under area. The respondents were men and wc~en between the ages of 21 and 49~ who smoked at least one pack a day of non-menthol filtere~ cigaret=es, and who had been smoking at lesst one year. C ~D

. , g [ A WORD OF CA~ION As with all qualitative research~ the indications are tc be viewed as ~uggestivm, rather than defi~itlve. The e~phasi~ in this pro- ject is primarily on the quality of what the rcspcndent~ say and the implications of their feelings and emotions. The pertinence and importance of any comment and finding develop as the polnL comes u9 in various sessions, and are manifesEed in one way or an- other by the respondents in tge different sessions. Since we have tou uften be~n u*lwilling witnesses to the misuse of Qualitative research in formulating marketing strategy, we feel obligated to inject a note of caution for th~ reader of this re- port. There are a numbe~ of clear-cut purposes served by qualit&- rive research as well as a number ~f objeetbves that it cannot and should not attempt to meet. Qualitative research can: - Develop hypotheses about the subject. Obtain insights into the social processes of group interactions as they relste to the subject, as well as how they are discussed. Qualitative research cai~Llot: - Quantify any of the above so that a "repres~r~tatlve" picture is obtained. - Determine how the market will react behaviorally to • i a s~bject that group participants have discussed. ~D ~n

m~

S[W~/ARY OF FINDINCS Th< m~'n and women of Phoenix all had vivid memories of how it wa~ Lhat Lht'y took up cig.J~,'tt~'s. By far the majority claimed the motivation for this inlt~al step had buen peer prusfure while they were ~I ~ch~,,~,l. Others spoke of boredom in th~ military service as a contributing factor, of rebel- ]ion against parental or educati.~al authority, or the [ac¢ that smoking represented "forbidden fruit." Or they said than they had begun with cigarettes to try to become adults, to loc~h tough, to impress girls, or to have something ~o do h* ~t'tLet with a good fli~Jkd. That they continued to ~moko was attributed to the enjoyment they now--as opposed to perhaps an initial sioh feeling got from thu activity ~id to what they termed a hagit that had been well developed over th~ years and might nL)w hu uunsid~red almost an addiuLiun. They said cigarettes were comforting~ a f~iliar presence and companion, that they provided something £o de with one's hands, sat{sf[ed an oral compulsion, relaxed them, gave thou confident,', acted as a prep, calmed them down, gave warmth, helped in a crisis, and helped when one was ill at ease among strangers. Some more ~imply said they liked the

taste; the taste that satislied. Sast~ and satlsf,~rL~on wer~ the tw~ wards that also ultimately proved the mo~L im- p~s~ible to define. Th~ respondents pointed E~ m~riad rimes when Lh~y fav~,cd indulging in cigarettes: aEter ~als~ with coffe~ afLer ~×, with liquor, at a party, ~hii~ driving, talki~ on th~ tulopl~one, playing cards, w,~bing the car, howling, w~c[~in~ tel~.viGion~ ~tudyJng~ playing th~ piano, taking ~ hat~ ~Ec They ~Fpear~d to split the v~!u~ o~ smoking b~tw~ ~ctivi- ~ies LhaL Eh~ ~moki~ pro¢c~ w~ ~elt to ~nhance and tho~e that it somehow offset, e.g.~ dLi~iug vers~ working, Cuud cigarettes (or good smnging experiences) were said to be smooth ai~d mild. They made you a little high, had ~ ileasant tast~, a full rich taste~ we~u s~t, lJad density3 maybe were jusL a little hitler or even bland buL hdd Llle ability tr re- lax you. On the other h~nd, a bad smcking experlenc~ in- volw, d cigarettes that were dubbed hea~~, very bitter, and har~h~ without taste or just Lh~ tastc of hot ~ir, were bit- ing, hit you in the lungs, m~d~ y~)~ gag ~nd cough, and conqd not satisfy you. With regard to filters, many s~id they wanted them to be as 0

i! ~ii!i!ii',i ;!i ~i !~i i;i~i!~ !i~!~i~¸