Tobacco Documents Online

BAT BI~ITISI-I-AMEEICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED )~/ TO D. J. WOOD~ ESQ., R. & D. E. FROM DATE C. J. PENDRY 20th F ebr u_ar_Y.r~l~9 F¢_~--'--" ~,i "'~" . " ': 2 ?:F~5i~74 t t Dear Jeremy, PROJECT K~O" o° .... • .... ~ ..... °,° . "" I .... .°. .°... • ; .o. i~ : -" I attach a copy of Nigel Dix's summary of the outcome of Stage I of this project, for your information. Stage II will take place shortly but has been slightly delayed by the fact that we are looking into the possibility of using it as an opportunity to ex~plore ways of improving our product-testing methodology. I will keep you informed of progress. With kind regards Yours sincerely, C.J. Pendry. Enclosure: cc: N.W. Dix~ Esq. C:) CD O "-4 O~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

a" "4, • ° / o Q PROJECT K~J Main Points arising from the Explo_ratoryStudy • (London 4973) Introduction l' The aims of thisresearch were to explore, for the preparation of a quantified study, (i) the extent to which consumer appraisal of cigarettes of known differing characteristics aligns with in~ernal assessment by Taste & Flavour panels and (ii) the vocabulary used by consumers in describing smokin6 attributes and experiences. The research was carried out by two agencies, each conductinG a total of 18 semi-structured depth interviews among smokers of EMBASSY FILTER. This particular brand was selected for the research since it has averasetaste characterist'ics and with a market share of around 20%, its smokers could be easily located. Each respondent was asked to smoke a specially manufactured control cigarette having smoking characteristics similar to ~I~iSSY, and to compare this with either one or both of two test blends. One test blend had a similar level of irritation to the control, b~:~ t:ith an increased intensity of Impact; the other had a simi]ar intensity of Impact to the control, but with a greater level of irritations. In all other respects, the tesZcigarettes resembled the control as closely as possible. Summary of Findings The research undoubtedly confirms the opinion that consumer descriptions of their smoking experiences are vague and highly subjective. M~ny words were used to describe smoking experiencez and even where differen~ respondents used the same word, it camno~: be assumed that similar sensations were being described• However, the majority of respondents apparently found little difficulty in distinguishing between the cigarettes sz:cked in the test, which perhaps indicates thaZ differences between cisare~:t~s in terms of Impact and Ir~itaticns are of some relevance and hence that the inclusion of these characteristics within the Taste & ?iavou: ~ustifiab!e "* system i~ c A~hou~h by no means clear cut separutc patterns emerged in the descriptions of these differences, and it is ~.l~ that a quantified study could provide increased knowled<e of the ways in which consumers perceive and relate the Impact ~nd Irritation sensations. In addition to the Taste & Flavour aspects, the study has ~'eve~le- "a nt~.mb~r of other criteria upon ~.:hich consu-_,'..rs appar-~ntly b':::." -..hal;. asness.-_ent of c.~ar~ttes and it is intended that theme, be furt;.:r tested ir the quantified research, to determine their s-,:nifi..:.~.-.-.,-~ and whether they should be included in future consumer tests, LLLiO0001 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 20 May 1999

-" 2 -- P How differences bet:.,een cig,~.rettes are ~e.'.~c'ribed Before'discussing the reactions of resp6ndents to the test cigarettes individually, it m~st be stressed that in many instances there is an overlap of terms used to.describe the two separate sensations of Impact and Irritations, with common use of "strong" and its supposed opposite "mild". This appears to be the most natural and readily forthcominE ~.Jay for smokers to describe ci- garettes, and in most cases only persistent probing by the inter- viewer produced more detailed response. There was a noticeable tendency.for smokers to compare the test cigarettes with other brands, although still using the strong/mild context - "like PLAYLRS No.6, that Sort of strongness". .. a) The !moact V.~riant Although many different words and phrases are used to describe this blend, there is a recurring theme of effects'upon the throat and chest. In general, the cigarette was thought to be strong and by some respondents "strong but smooth". b) The Irritation Variant Again, many ~,:ords were used to describe this cigarette, most overlapping with d~scriptions of the Impact variant. However, whereas the latter was largely seen to affect the throat and chest, the Irritation variant• was more frequently considered to cause unpleasant effects in the mouth, particularly on the tongue. In general, the cigarette was considered to be strong, but str0n~ in this case being qualified by roughness and harshness. c) Flavour Sensations Although this research was primarily designed to study differences between cigarettes in terms of the irritant charac- teristics, it ~;as thought likely that flavour aspects would arise in the interviews and thus respondents were encouraged to discuss any flavour differences they noticed in cigarettes and how these are assessed. Firstly, it is apparent that the word flavour is not natural! used b v smokers of Vl.~:_._la cigarettes, respondents preferring • ; to discuss the "!:~ste" of a cigarette. The word taste is widely used and seems to refer to the overall smoking e~erience, rather than ~ust flavour, In facZ, it at.pears doubtful whether smokers of this ty:-e o£ product *~hink of "it ns hav~..cG "flavour" - to them a Virgin~:l cigarette ~- ,~_~es the natural tobacco taste: rather as one zi~ht ~" "-.'- of ~,nl .... ~he taste of .~.lain as opposed to flavoured yoghurt. Certainly, when describin[~ cigarettes of other than Virginia type. ~. :~-. American, Tur:<izh, respondents shot.:ed a greater a~.:areness of fi;,vour, de~cribing ~'foreign" cigarettes as havinG a ...... ~ed or ~,.~c~ flavour. c Q-/ C oD BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

° / ~o Tar ~nd Nicotine Aspects When rcs~ondents spontaneousiy mentioned tar and nicotine effects. they were related to the stainin~ attributes rather than to any aspects of taste, and only on probing by the interviewer did some zmokerm show a~Isreness of a relationship between tar/nicotine and "strength". Only a few respondents thought of nicotine as a type of drug and related this to the effects of stimulation or relaxation. All respondents hadheard of the tar and nicotine tables although few had actually bothered to study them. ~-I&%SSY was recollected to be "~ozewhere in the middle", but so lonE as their brand was not "at the top", smokers were not unduly ccncerned by the table. Cne or two fezale respondents had been influenced by the table to try SILK CUT but had since reverted to ~K~SSY. Overall, respondents seemed uncertain as to what tar and nicotine are and tended to =rouo then: together as "the dark, smelly stuff collecSed in the filter". Other criteria used to assess cigarettes The research also revealed a number of other apparently significa~ aspects upon which consuzers assess cigarettes and it is proposed th~ these be included in the quantified study to determine their importan~ They are: - firmness of filling - ease of dra~o - effectiveness of filter (perhaps related to ease of draw) - rate of burn - after-taste Prooosa!s for a o,:~ntitative stud.v Both Research Agencies involved in the exploratory work have been ozked to submit nro~o~als fo:" a quantitative study. 3~e objectives of this will be to determine the significance of the various aspects of consumer cigarette ap!~raiaal raised in the exploratory research, and to develop scales upon which such attributes may be rated in future product tests. 8th February, 197a. CID O C w BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Q f y N.Y. nIX, ESQ., MARKET RESEARCH DEPT., HILLBANK. D lJP146E. D.J. ~OOD. .° 10th January, 1974. ., • o .o , ~. ° .° • . Project E:EW : , .,. I have now gone through in detail the reports from the two Agencies on the qualitative stage of Project EE~, and have some thoughts on how the quantitative stage might be handled. Presuming that the 18 smokers contacted by each Agency are fairly represents tire of U.K. smokers in general, it is clear that many of the adjectives commonly used by smokers when describing their impressions of a cigare@te, such as strong, harsh, rough, hot, cover a wide range of sensations. For instance the hlgh impact cigarette was described as strong, but so also was the high irritation cigarette; in fact many smokers thought the latter stronger than the former. There is also the comment in the Z.R.A. report ~hat consumers would consider French cigarettes "strong-flavoured". So the finding, in a consumer test, that one cigarette was considered too strong would really give very little information about the cigarette, and further probing would be necessary to find out in what sense it was too strong. At the same time there are clear indications, that consumers were able to notice differences between the three cigarettes, and with free choice of term8 were able to describe these differences. The high impact cigarette was seen by many as having an adverse effect on the throat, often described as a burnin~ sensation, whereas the high irritation cigarette had adverse effects on the tongue (and even the teeth with some respondents), and to a lesser extent on the throat. It is unlikely that these differences would have been revealed by the conventional type of questionnaire containing scales for strength, mildness, harshness, etc. What seems to be required is a questionnaire specially designed In order to bring out the more useful connnents that respondents were making. CD Years ago, In R. and D., we had a project called WATERL~ which attempted to relate the smoking characteristics of c~ representative flue-cured, Burley and Oriental grades with their leaf and smoke chemistry. A special questionnaire was -.~ designed for this project, and I enclose a copy because I think cD BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

.° / /. / the general approach, and even some of the specific questions, could be extremely useful in the quantitative stage of KEW~ For instance with minor modification question I could read: le EFFECT OH TONGUE: Consider only the sensation on the tip or front portion of the tongue. The • smoke caused a stlnglng or burnin~ sensation Very much Much etc. The most obviously relevant questions are No.l, relatinK to the tongue, and No.3, relating to the back of the throat, though some of the others might also be useful; or one might be able to construct addltlonal questions, alone the same lines, which more closely reflec~ the respondents' spontaneous comments. Anyway, I offer this as s suggestlon for you and Colin toconslder. ".- . .° / c.c. Dr. S,J. Green D.E. Conway, Esq. CD o O "-U C~D BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

/ .& RESEAIKCH PROPOSAL FOR PROJECT KEW ~/ September 1973 Prepared for: By BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED Marketing & Retail Analysis Ltd 178 Sha/tesbury Avenue, London WC2 Ol 836 8383/4 0 0 0 CD O0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

1, BACKGROUND In the past alternative methods of assessing and ev.aluating cigarettes by P. D. L. smoke analysis, Taste and Ylavour panels and consumer research have not always produced reconcilable results. A/though results from alternative methods have not necessarily been strictly comparable because of variations in test factors, the differences in the results have raised concern about the Taste and Flavour system as an evaluative technique and about the lack of understanding of the relationships existing between the three means of evaluation. B. A. T. therefore wish to conduct a strictly controlled project in which cigarettes with clearly noticeable differences between them in terms of Taste and Flavour evaluation are measured by both P. D. L. and consumer testing. The purpose of the consumer testing project will be: D To determine the extent to which consumer appraisal of cigarettes which have known, differing characteristics aligns with internal assessment by Taste and Flavour panels. 2. To study the vocabulary used by consumers in describing such known differences. The research will examine irritant and flavour characteristics separately and these proposals cover the first stage for irritant characteristics. O CD O O "-4 O BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

~Q METHOD Three blends will be manufactured to highlight impact and irritation differences. Embassy R. S.F.T. has been selected as a control brand with a wide franchise which has average characteristics lending themselves to systematic variation. The test cigarettes will however be in a King Size format because of manufacturing facilities. Three cigarette blends will then be tested: I. The 'control' cigarette based on Embassy. e Test blend I with similar irritations to the control but with a noticeably higher intensity of impact. 3. Test blend II with similar impact to control but with a noticeably higher level of irritation. Research would first use exploratory, qualitative research to prepare the ground for a second stage product placement, quantitative study. I. Exploratory Study Twenty intensive, semi-structured interviews would be conducted with Embassy smokers to provide: a detailed understanding of consumer recognition of various cigarette characteristics, especially impact and irritations. a knowledge of the language used by consumers. a guide for use in designing the questionnaire for the subsequent placement test. CZD O c~ cZD BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

3~ The interviews would follow a format which would be agreed "I with the client but which could be expected to be along the following lines: il establishment of respondents current and previous smoking habits. if. reasons for choice of regular brand. iii. dislikes of brands which would never be smoked. iV, Vi vi. further open probing of all characteristics which the respondent is ever aware of when evaluating a cigarette. specific further probing, where necessary, in the areas of satisfaction, irritation, strength/ mildness, hot/cool, harsh/smooth and a.rnount and type of flavour to establish comprehension and perception of these terms. further discussion with the respondent of awareness, comprehension and evaluation generally, of: = tar and nicotine content - differences in mouth, throat and nose irritations - flavour differences vii. open-ended description in the respondents own terms of the control cigarette and one of the test cigarettes. C C C ~C r'x. BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999