Tobacco Documents Online

r~ C~ L.-; BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

ifm DELIg-~Y CIGAREq'rES AND TEE PERC~TION OF PRODUCT QUAI/~Y M. OL~AN ist Novemt~r, I~2 SL%9 [~RY Some thoughts on ~he notion of quality are used to intrcduce the zhesis that fac%o~ contributing %0 the cons~r's ;~rception of quali~y are changinE_. ~"he ways in which a Io~' deiive~ cigarette shaker judges his product are shown -~ be different %o those utsed by The traditional, full flzvou/ s~kero A s~udy of the pe_rception of pressure du-op and ventilation variability is discuss6~ and the way in which prc~ucZ characteriszics are infer"red fr~ the pattern of filter end-stain is also presented. Ir is concluded that ottr notions of quality should related, az leas: in par~, to a clear w~derstanding of our conm~rers' ;~rception of which a~iributes are im;~Drtan~ in dete~ning prc~uc~ acceo%abi!ity. EY WORDS Low delivery ci£are~tes, consumer behaviour, preference, produc~ qua!Ity,. 0 pressure drop, ventilation, filter end-s~ain. (D~ - ~ZD BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

Lf)W DELl ~ -..% C! G~AE.~S .~ND q'.4E PSRCEPTI I C~' OF PRO[TaCT QUkhl TY I. Conceots of qu~!ity. Like comfort, quality is extremely difficu!z to define, except perhaps by its absence. We al! know when we are unco~afortable, but find i~ almost impossible I:o define ~dort or even elucidate cc~pletely the factors which contribute to its experience. Similarly, absence or lack of "quality" is mcre often and n~Dre readily iden~.ified ~han its presence. In this and the Eabsequent presentations, two "our.siders" views of qum!i~y will be =~iven and we shall de-~Dnstrz:e thmt i'.s definition depends very mmch on :he position of the person from who's ~xgrspec:ive Each a view is taken. The concept of quality in relation %o the tobacco business exisr.s in the eyes of a: least six or seven separate beholders. Each has his parEicular influence on our activities. Conceptually, at least, it is possible to think of some relative mea.~.~re of quality, which enables a judgement of overall product acceptability %o he (notionally) deter--lined. Tnis we shall call the Quality Index (ql). For a range of produc~s - or for a ~roup of c~npanies - i% would, therefore, he possible to derive rznkin~ (of products or companies). At any particul~r ~in~e IT1, Fi~re !], we may therefore determine a "quality advantage" [Qa] between either com oetitive products or, overall, between rival companies [A, B or C]. By malntainin~ this quality a~Jvantage over time, we may perceive that our Qa has be_en increased at T2. At this point, we may consciously decide that Qa ~y be reduced - and, hQpefully, yield soc.e cost savings - by an amount Qx to reslore our orig!nal quality advantage and yet maintain our co~LDeti%ive le~d over other products (or other ccxn...manies) [Fi~Ire 2]. Such a strate=~y can only be coc~ended if Qx is real. BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999 C~

-2- Our concern should be zo challenge z~e assumption ~haz o~~ zradYt~ona! notions o~ quality - particularly the mix of factors conzrlbutzng to our hypo~he~ica! Q~aliZy Index - remain valid at this tL~e. Complacency or arrogance may deny us the rea!isation that "~he rules of the g~e" have chanEed and that con~ers are no~ relating %o a modified index of quality, QII, against ~hich our re!azive performance fares rather legs ~ell [Figure 2]. Tn. Zs entirely hypothe=ical device is introduced merely to signal the danger znat we m~y overlook changes in cons~er expectations and that we may be regarding our products - az least, our new ones - in the !i~nt of outnr~ded s%andards of accepzabi!izy. 2. ~odels of DroducI acceDtabi!izv Some ~ap~-x)r: for the vie,~, that ex.oec~a~ons are changing, can be ~ained from our recent Project BRC~__EY. Based upon qualitative research in the UK, USA and S~witzerland, we have advanced the notion that ~here are six broad categories of jud=.o~en~, which the consumer makes, in determining his overall response ~o a cigarette. These are- .~,lechanics I rri rations Tas:e/Amoma Visual ~czile Mood Sta~_e and Hedonic We believe that the w'ay in which ~hese factors are concatenated by different groups of smokers enables us to better predic~ the needs of ~hose ~roups. The model suggests ~hat for each class of parameter, i~ is possible ~o define (a) a tolerance bandwidth, and (b) an index of salience. A tolerance bandwidth is the range wlthin which a product CD r.o will presen~ i~se!f ~o be_ acceptable; salience is ~he weighting att=c.he~ CT~ to a particular .oaran~.~ter in the &,~.kers' overall mix of fea-ures, ~hich L.4 ~o=~.,~. dete.,-mines his.~vd~-..=_ .._~ of acceotabi~. __. .itv.. _ Q.4 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

-3- For example, we believe that a typical full flavour/m/ddle-tar smoker [Fi~-re 3] may be very intolerant of poor e-~__se of draw (narrow" b~ndwid~h), but %~ this has a low salience factor. He mzy also r~uire high levels of ~tas%e/aroma and ~his has a high salience, whereas he is vet3- tolerant of variability/ in rela~.ion to vis-aa!-~actile factors, which also have a lob" salience. This may be contrasied with the needs of the lob" de!iver3~ ~oker [Fixate 4] for whc~ "mechanics" and "vis-~a!-tac~i!e" faciors have a higher salience for ..... ~ Analysis of some recent Sara gives general suppor- ~o this model [Fi~nlre 5] and suggests that the expectations of ic~ delivery smoker-s are indeed different to ~hose of middle-lar ~-nokers. Such z conclusion, -f Ed%cor"-~=~/ by further analysis and research, will confirm our initial conten-ion tha~ 3udg_.=me. nts of ~r=~4uct quality are dependent upon ~he type of ~-r~kers malEing those judg~.~ents and ~hat any notion of "quality index" n~_,st acknowledge the perspective of various con~'~.er types. 3". .... Th, e perception of ores~are droo and ven~ilazion variability ~',~rning frc~n a broad b~ash model of product acceptability, it is perhaps worzh%'hile to examine, in some detail, ~he influence of specific variability on sub3ec~ive judgement. A recently completed study at GP~DC enquired into ~he effect on subjective zssessmen~ of the naturally occurrin~ variabilily in pressure drop and ventilation of one particular cigare~-e. Ten thousand cigarettes were drawn directly from. the production line and selected on the ~basis of pres~are drop and ventilation. :"he m~jori~y ~ere found to be acco.n~oda~ed in the matrix sho~ in Figure 6. I series of ~ ~ ~ _u~e~ve evaluz~ions on 22 cigarettes drawn from this ~rix ~as CD undert~<en by trained exper~ s~)kers and yielded sc~.e interesting results. O~, BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

A ---=-. /f FiEares 7, 8 and 9 show the influence on panel mean scores on drab' effort, %hroatfeel and impact respectively. From these da~a, it can be seen ~b~t (a) the range of mean ~abjective scores is quite small (b) the influence of variability on these two parameters is most marked on impact rKther than, as might be ex.Dec~ed, on draw effort. An. alternative .Derspeczive on the data can "De obtained ~rom inspection of FiEares I0 and ii, where changes associated with pressure drop and venti!at:on respectively ar~ plotted a~ainst the re~ression coefficients (for seven ~ssessment parameters). Given that this experiment was undertaken by expert smokers directed ~o look for and score differences, we conclude ~hat it is unlikely ~ha% con~±Ters would, under more natural smoker conditions, detect and reac~ adversely to ~ch variability. However, i~ must not be concluded that ~ach variability is acceptable. '~ilst we observed little real effect on subjective judgements, products from ~his normal range demonstrmzed considerable influence on the smoke chemistry analysis results. FiBllre 12 compares the two extreme_ pres~-~re drop categories (ventilation effect averaged) and it can be seen ~haz only in respe~--t of CO delivery, is there any marked influence. ~en, however, extremes of ventilation level (pressure drop effect averaeed) are examined, the effects are quite considerable [Figure 13]. Therefore, whilst we m~y Y~ke a fairly relaxed view of ventilation variability in relation to its effect on perception by smokers, it remains extreze!y important ~o exer~ control, in order to satisfy gover~Ten~ azencies en~aged in product deliver" monitoring. BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999 C~ LJ,J

-5- /- 4. Physlcml m~%ribu%es which m~h% affect con~amer acceonance A !i~le whi!ea~o, we at%empned to identify all zhose physical az~ribu%es of & cigarette which migh~ be perceived by a con~amer &nd influence his judgement of a product's acceptability . Our lisz - which may no~ be exclusive - is given in Fim~re 14. Qua!i~azive research subsequently showed tha~ a more manageable list of 12, largely ~radirional, par~Te_~ers could he regarded as high priority [FiEure 15]. ~/nongs~ these "end- staining pattern" was zhe only ~drprising entre. Our previous encounte.~s with ~his phenomenon hai show~, smoke~-s co be almost ~ua!ly divided in %heir response ~o end-s~ain. About half infer ~ha% an end-stain shows ~ha~ the fi!ier is working (i.e. a "plus"), whilst %he o%her half perceive i: as a dirty re¢~nder of whaz ~nkoke is (i.e. a "negative"). Turning ~o ~he pattern of end-stain, we contrived a series of fi!zer stains which consumers were asked %o judge in re!a%ion %o the following bimodal dimensions: Insipid f!avour/%as%e Soft/less irri~ating Efficlent fll%r~tion Hi~n tar More healZh risk Satisfying Accep~abie Attractive Clean Familiar High personal preference Full flavour/%as%e Harsh/irritatinK Inefficienz filtrazion Low ~ar Less health risk Unsatisfying Unacceptable Unaz~raczive Dirty Unfamiliar tow personal preference The results were analysed by =he INGRID approach adopted in the DELTA method and the results are sun~narised in the ploz shown in Figure 16. W%ils= we make no profound inferences frcrn these data, it is interesting 5o no~e that: w 0 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

(a) smokers are able to make sensible inferences about smoking expec~.ations and aesthetic appeal of end-stain. (b) %he ~st "zope_a!ing" end-stain pattern - the "inverted" bulls-eye - is the %echnica!!y mos~ difficu!t effec[ to achieve! 5. Conclusions ~hils% our study of end-stain patterns is less than profound - ant presented more e_~ an ~a~ing aside - we do believe that it highli~hr-s a major conclusion of our consideration of product quality. That is, that quality is in the eye of the beholder and, that we disregard our con~-umers' perception of what is importan~ and what is not, ar our peril. Whilst much remains to be understood about the peculiar ways in which smokers contrive their judgements of quality, we should not assume that the bases of mJch judg_~men~s are static. Rather, l~e our products themselves, they are becoming increasingly sophisticated. BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999 w O C~ L,,J -..,j

-I t') o O 3 If) o ='I r- if) i O~ ii mm If) i (3 ¢D ¢D ¢D ¢D I t~ t~ ~6~69801 I I I I I i ! ! I i I ! I ! I i4 ' I I,o J~ °I °I I I I I' , I I I I I I I' I I Ix)

W -i C) 0 0 (3 3 -s 0 F II1 i| 0 -r i 0 CI. tD CI,ASS" lO SAL! V.NCE • t~ I (3U [(E Mec.han i c-s o -; I o I I e I ¢ i L _J 3 : BROMI.,F.Y MOIiEL OF I~1 ] DDI,E-'I'hI~ SMOKEII~ Irri ration 'l'as l:e / Visual Mood Aroma 'ra[: I. J ]e 8Late --4 I i I I J --q I I I I ( I I I ! I .... j r---i r" --1 I I I i I i L-.J i 8 lledon i c I I I L- "r, 'J'O ] e )'ll n ce I}a n(hv i dth _J _ __~ 5 6 .6 .69 01