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

CO M o O t3k O O e- B -i tm~ O --I F" m i| O ¢D e. "1" ¢D D ~r o -I ~D ¢D CLASS : SALIENCE: F1GURE 4 • BIIOHIA~.Y MODEL OF I,OW-TAI{ Mechan Jcs SMOKERS r* -'~ ! I I I I I I I I I i L__J Taste/ VI sua I M()t)d Irritation Aroma Tacl. i ] u ~l:ate r -1 I I I I ! I I I I L__J I I I L__.J i I I -J t..- --I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L__J lledon J t: r ~,,-i I i I I i I I I I ! I I L _J 01z6 69 0 !

). M 0 0 0 c) ¢- 3 ¢D 0 "1 ff- i (n ii 0 ¢D O} ¢D m 0 ¢., ¢0 ,< ¢.0 ¢.m SALIENCE: FIGURE 5 : LOW- hND MIDDI,I~-TAR SHOKEflS COHPAR}':I) "STRENC:Tii" "TASTE QUANTITY" t~ I i i u-" 6.2 71 ,1.6 I I I 3.1 I I i 71 2.9 I i i 1.5 7.1 i I ! 6.4 I I I Z:~l 4.3 i ! 7~,4'9 ! ! 3.6 5.8 I 6 69 01

m -.i o 0 D. 0 0 r- 3 0 F m m. 0 i. -r 0 m 0 -I _nL TIP VENTILATION PRESSHRE DROP MM WG 92-99 100-107 108-115 116-123 101 U 34-37 2 38-41 50 J ................. 42-45 46-49 139 191 208 35 13O 281 786 540 516 1185 545 291 861 1078 411 50-53 365 ,~r , , 180 124-131 !19 334 349 ]85 11 II ZI GURF._6 I 6 69 01

m -i £) o Q. O c 3 f~ "I O '=I I-- ¢D (Q m ¢P ml (n wm 'I- ¢D m =7 O Q. CD I.D t.D ¢D t I V .u~ ."J V '~. .'J ~ V u~. ~.~ .~. V A ~ / A ."J ~ .u~ A .~ O7 O7 Ch Ch Cn O7 ' Cn Cn Cn Cn Cr~ Oh Cn • Cn o7 J:'_ J'r '.~ ~l ' J:'. ~q L,~ ~J,I Lo I I ~o I I I ~o "1 I ",4 I to '~ I I ~ I I I ~ I ,I b~ L~ b~ L~ u~ u~ Ul b~ .Lnu~ u~L. u~ L~ u~ • ~" J=" O~ ~ IN) .C~ r,,J ~ Co .C~ 07 E:) 07 O C~ O0 00 t'O CD C:) 1,0 00 i i I ~ I ~ i i i I i I i ~ t I i I I I I i I ~--, ~ I-~ I-~ I-...' I.-J I--J t" I-~ I-~ l--J I-~ I-~ I-~ l-J ~-J l-J l-J I-~ ~ I~ ~ t-~ ~0 ~ tO L,'4 U1 I--~ ~,1 ~ ~)4 N N UI ~ LO ",4 ",4 LD 0 r4" ~.q~, 1=3 C.) '70 07 tT) C.3 -1 m' 77 "77 0 ~C~ ---4 7"1 G-') E-~ rT~

FIGURE 8 THRO~ IEEEL I'~O. "10 23 "22 "18 21 !4 17 9 12 !! 8 !6 2O , 2 3 15 1 4 13 6 2 30 Venti]otJon K~on 45,6- 49.5 > 4£.6 > ~9.6 -qs.6- ,,,£.5 > 49,6 41,6 -- 45,5 45,6- 49,5 57,6- 41,5 4!.6- 45.5 4!,B- 145,5 32,6- ~l,5 ~5.B :- 49,5 > 49.B 37,5 - 4] i I5 37.5 < 32.5 45,6- 49,5 ! < 37,5 < 37.5 41.6- 45,5 32.6- 4].5 37.6- 41.5 41.6- 45.5 124 - !3! !!6- 123 3.08- 115 116- 123 lO0 - 107 124 - 13Z ]08 - 115 ]24- ]31 108- 115 100- !07 116 - 323 I00- 107 92 - 99 92 - oQ ._~.J ]08- ]15 ]!6 - 123 92 - 99 lOO- ]07 ]24 - i3! !]S- ]23 ]9D- 307 !08- 115 92 - 99 1.7 1,8 !,9 2,0 2.0 2.1 2,1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2,3 2.3 24 25 25 25 25 26 28 25 2,7 2,8 o C~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

m ,-4 o o D,, o C 3 0 I-- iiI (I) im 'I- i 0 Q,, .,,.,I, t ! ! I I I i i I I I ! I t I 1 I l I I I I I I-~ C3 0 ~ t,,,3 LO -tO 0 r.o Do tO t-~ ~- I~ ~ lO L,,,4 I-.' C~ ~ ~ r.O L,u 0 _ . - = [D ,-4- 0 0 "13 --b q) 0 I~-, Iqj If"~ '. -n m £Iz6 69 01

-I o I3. 0 C 3 o r- (I= ml =m m fl m m (ID m ID t,D P I ¢.] ORI/11. I/EPI~E$I:NIA[ 1 ON. OF_. CIIAN!~ES .J4,SSOf: I A I LI). t'~1 ]~l I~, [), 0,4 1 REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS 0,3 p.RAW FFORT 92-99 100-107 ]16-]23 P,D, MM WG 124-131 -0,4 TASTE AND I'IOUTHFEEL ~OSEFEEL MOUTIIFULL THROATFEEL IMPACT 9176 :69 0 1 F I r; R r ] 0

IXI -I C) o Q. 0 ¢3 t.- 3 ¢D o r- m| ¢D -r m 0 ID CD ¢,D PICIORIAL <37,5 REPRESENTATION OF FIGURE 11 CHANGES ASSDCIATED 0,/I REGRESS I or( COEFFICIENTS WITH VENT I LA'I ION IRAW FFORT 3/.6-41.5 45.6-49,5 VENTILATION > 49,6 TASTE ~OSEFEEL OUTHFEEL IIOIITIIFULL TIIROATFEEI_ 7, AND Z lz 6 (;.. 6 9 Z 0 1 _,..,_, ......

-I 0 o Q. o e- 3 0 i" ml ¢D ii "l- m 0 ¢,D FIGURE 12 | St4OKE ANALYSIS RESULTS:PRESSURE DROP PRESSURE DROP MM W,G, 92-99 124-131 PMI~NF mglclg 9,53 9,75 TNA mglcl g ,91 ,88 CO mgl c I g 8,5 9,63 WATER. nlglclg 0,75 O, 7Ll PUFF NO, i0,0 10,3 8 6 69 ,01

m o o. o C 3 o F" m I FIGURE 13 SMOKE AHALYSIS RESULTS: .-e VENTILATION i. ,m '-r ¢D i :::1" 0 i,< VENT l LAT I ON P! I. < 37,5 > 49,6 PMWNF mg/c I g i0,83 8,21 TNA mglclg 0,96 0,78 CO mo/c I g i0,59 7,81 WATER mg/c I g 0,92 0,59 PUFF NO, 10,27 6176 69 01

--I C) o Q. O o 3 o r-" m| 0 (1} mg I ID 0 e~ ID ID LLGURE_]!I P_ !]Y_SJ~A_ L _&]].ll I BUT E ~_!~.111 C]t _M I_G!! T___A F_ t:~ F. C T_..C !] t! S U M E R. ~ C~E I'ZA N C E IIARDNESS OF FILTER RATIO OF TIPPING LENGTII TO ROD LENGTIt CREASING IN CIGARETTE PAPER SItAPE OF CIGARETTE ROD (ROUND, OVAL, SQUASHED) SPOTS ON CIGARETTE PAPER PRINT SIZE, STYLE, COLOUR, LOGO FILTER DESIGN SINGLE, DUALs TRIPLE FLAGGING ON TIPPING BLACK RINGS (AIR GAPS) ENDS FALL OUT SIIORTS IN PACK EASE OF LIGHTING LIP STICKING DISCOLOURATION BEIIIND BURN LINE SMOKE TIIROUGII TIP VENTS COAL FALL OUT (FIRE IIALLING) FIRMNESS OF If)I]ACCO ROD RATIO OF LENGI'II TO CIRCUMFERENCE -[OBACCO STIICK LINDER SEAMS PAPER COLOUR, OPACITY, VERGE, VELLIN MARKINGS -[ IPPING COLOUR AND PATTERN FII..IER TIP END PATTERN, SlIEAN OF TOW VISIIII_E/INV1SIIILE VENTILATION tlOI_ES ANCIIORAGE OF FILTER TiP rAGGED CUT ENDS COLOUR OF TOBACCO PACK A RO/.IA LEAKS, PINIIOI. ES, BAD SEAMS RATE AND EVENESS OF BURN VENTILATION WHICII COOLS 1HE t. IPS ASII CLING AND COLOUR STAINING PATTERN ON FILTER IlOT, SOFT, WET COLLAPSE PERCEIVED PRESSURE DROP I!ASE OF EXr l NGIJ I SII ] biG • 0 6C69 01

F I G~JRE !5 HIGH PRIORITY, r" r I R,MNESS DENSITY ENDS STABILITY HOT COLLAPSE (ROD AND FILTER) FILTER HARDNESS PRESSURE DROP VENTILATION PUFF NUMBER SMOULDER RATE END STAINING PATTERN AsH CHARACTERISTICS COAL FALL OUT 0 C~ ',.0 '..0 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

133 3:,,, --I 0 0 O. 0 0 3 0 t- ml 0 in -T- in ~r 0 m ~o m ~o © -rl r-rl i-,--+

o o o .i " .... .o ° = i i. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

0 C~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

CONTENTS | DESIGN OBJECTIVES, , DELTA ASSESSMENT CONSTRUCTS, 3, DELTA MATRIX, 4, ACCEPTABILITY CORRELATIONS (CONSTRUCTS), 5. ACCEPTABILITY CORRELATIONS (ELEMENTS), 6, DELTA PLOT, 1 REPLICATION DELTA PLOT, 8," RELIABILITY CORRELATIONS (INTER TRIAL), 1 RELIABILITY CORRELATIONS (INTRA TRIAL). 0 $ "" DELTA TASTE PLOT, I',,_) c7,, ',.o L.,q BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

O0 ~> ,-I C~ o Q. 0 0 t-- 3 0 r- IQ m| 0 ¢D || -r- ID 0 I]1 ¢.D il ID Panellist; Oriented Vocabulary Dynamic Data Presentation and Indlvic]ual ~eUlabiii[y ~oni~oring 9c56~69~01 , o

.- .'- • • .° r. ............. • .~ ........... . ° . ? _ . DeQta A.ss~ss~emt Co~s£~wcts i i ..... .. .. • ..... .°. Mouthfull Draw Effort Mouthfeet Nosefeel Throatfeel J Impact , Taste !Ar0ma ' Acceptability P,O "'-,4 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

e "O C dd O L C O O e, J~ L- (3 !. O ¢: u~ C C C L el r~ t BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

t'. ....... .. . - - - - " -" .= Construct Mouthfuli I, Draw Effort Mouthfeel Nosefeel ~. Throatfeet .Impact Taste Aroma .. I Correlation 0.884 -0.757 0.568 0.613 0.648 0.751 0.805 0.763 - -# • o,. * , ! °o" 0", "-.0 ',,,0 ',.0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

• ° .......... / Element .Peter Stuyvesant. Extra Mild • " . - Silk Cut Embassy No. 1 Extra Mild Dunhill Superior Mild John Player Extra Mild Marll~oro • Viceroy " Extra Milds . Real Lights- Fact . Merit i Correlation -0.818 0.537 -0.933 -0.687 -0.625 0.677 0.707 0.828 -0.735 0.929 • ; -, .-•° r',D ,43 IM4 ,,.O BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

................ , ..... . o.... ................... [ - D raw effort -4 -5 ,8 .6 Aroma Acceptabilil Taste Mouthful~ Impact Nosefeel -2 Mouthfeel Throatfeel Key to elements 1. Peter Stuyvesant Extra Mild 6. Marlboro Lights 2. Silk Cut 7. Viceroy Extra Milds 3. Embassy No. 1 Extra Mild 8, Real 4. Dunhiil Superior Mild 9. Fact 5. John.Player Extra Mild 10.- Merit . -'~.. 0 t'x.3 0-'~ ",..0 ,,.0 0",, BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

/. ]7 Draw effort 3 .10 Acceptabil[ Mouthfull Taste Impact Mouthfeel :feel Nosefeel Key to elements 1. Peter Stuyvesant Extra Mild 6. 2. Silk Cut 7. 3. Embassy No. 1 Extra Mild 8, 4. Dunhill Superior Mild 9. 5, John Player Extra Mild 10. Marlboro Lights Viceroy Extra Milds Real Fact Merit r,o/ 0", BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

8~ DeB,~a c-~~ar~son of tr~a"~s ~ and cons~'uct usage Construct Mouthfull Draw Effort Mouthfeel Nosefeel Throatfeel l rnpact Taste , Aroma Acceptability Correlation 1/11 0.9311 0.7205 0.8134 0.6462 O.6289 . 0.8674 0.7834 0.7448 0.7822 0 ",,,.0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

El ,-I ¢') O Q. 0 o e- 3 0 r- m m= 0 am Z m 0 m m Q. m N ¢,0 t Specific Performance "~ { General Performance I • Delta comparison ef individua| and group co~lstruct usage Correlations IndividuaVGroup Construct MouthfuU Draw Effort Mouthfeel Nosefeel Throatfeel Impacl • Taste Aroma Acceptability Total Individual/Group Correlalion Individual -0.1017 0.4759 0.3141 0.4881 -O.3467 0.7947 0.8131 0.3999 0.7859 0.5215 2 0.7472 0.7840 0.7197 0.0714 0.6392 0.7950 0.8692 0.7893 0.7235 0.7291 3 4 0,8584 0.8002 0,6408 0.8995 0.3227 0.8392 0,1384 0.6872 0.5993 0.7862 0.6426 0.7775 0.7042 0.2689 -0.1130 0.7531 0.6242 0.2459 0.5549 0.5843 5 0.9159 0.6882 0.7885 0.7366 0.7445 0.7501 0.7487 0.4833 0.7274 0.7091 8 , 0.3688 0.338O -0.2199 -0.0538 0.0461 0.7270 O.0804 0.4822 0.8664 0.4683 7 0.2874 0.6603 0,7629 0.6728 0.8382 0.8427 0.5472 O.O984 0.3575 0.5822 8 0.1626 -0.1030 0.4787 -0.6728 0.5179 0.7150 0.0634 O.3617 0.4036 0,3335 9 0.3308 0.2834 0.5102 -0.0152 0.1089 0,7814 0.8930 0.1883 0.3897 0.3990 _q96169~0l "~

IU. De~a taste £r~a| E Toasted Acceptable for Woody taste .6 • 1 0 Sweet Musty •2 Earthy .q Peppery • 4 Burnt • Key to elements 1. Peter Stuyvesant Extra Mild 6. Marlboro Lights 2. Silk Cut 7. Viceroy Extra Milds 3. Embassy No. 1 Extra Mild 8. Real 4. Dunhill Superior Mild 9. Fact 5. John Player Extra Mild 10. Merit 0 ',..0 (_,q ',4D 0", BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

II Ei,'I'A 0 • I",,.) .....,j BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

. °. : ;, . "-~ F] i::~'-,,.'~'i.]'i .'". : ' ~.. " "~; .-.L F'!_F'C'F. r FD l J~7-F:( ] :-:.-"4.-"7'2) ......... ,--' mr.,-,,',Ju,-.f.s u_--.ed ~,-~ the tc--~. . .: = .--~.-- :.)c-f F~- PPf._m/~iC-f.. _~PS ._-..;.~ .. ..-r-! I !'..~ T - ,-..-.r",-.,- .~ ~ ".'24" ° - ,4r" rT-°,o H.:,.:.r_..:..:.I"iL,LI I F, ,F, Hr',r_T,-K..:. MCfUTHFULL T'; " '-- I -" _.:...H F~ E~FnF-:T 3 l"inLI THF E EL N,-,,:.,c p r cl I - , - - --r"-r"--- .-'= THF.IJI"~. I r c~.L 6 I I'IF'FiC:T 7 TR:-:TE 8 RRL-@IF~ ,'q--l--rr.m,'.r. T ~ T --, l - Fl.,_.r-r II'It',.LLI I I ,.,_~'~", F'RnZ~Ln-:T'-: F'. :-:. E::::TRR M ], LD B SILl:'. CUT I;: E" ," ,-'.-' ' • _t'tt, t-I.:,-:.: EXTE:FI MILD "r, DIJHHILL .'E=:I_IF' MIL9 E J.P. EXTRR M]I_D F MRRLBFIF,'O L IOHTS C~ t I T ,+-~-.I-o t H REAL _T F~CT .T r,1EF: I T 2t . The DELTA method relies upon a set of assessment parameters derived by the potential panel to represent dimensions of discrimination which they all agree are useful and appropriate. For the Southampton GRgDC panel the parameters listed at the top of this page are those with which it currently operates. The products assessed in this particular evaluation are drawn from the U.K. and U.S.A. markets. It is not usual, in normal operational assessments, to combine products from different markets in one cohort for evaluation. However, for this demonstration, this particular set provides some interesting indications of the method's utility. The method requires that at least eight cigarettes are tested for each evaluation. It is normal for half the set to be ~mo}:ed on one occasion, the remainder next day. C" ~c C'i o. BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

I:i-'UF.:T i..]~ 1 KOT--F:,:. :I ::':,.',;.. '7"_-', :: f:~TF; - .;'-~:',e I L..o'l;..~. 1-- ._=~ i r,~:.u+.. H,-,. c,-F F..~,r,e I ;,,er,,l:,_~r-~; - I 0 PF.:rI_nUCT:-: ;P Ft ]?, C 9 E F O H 1 ..T 1 1 "---'..=,~1 2rl. RA 1 :-:..=,A I I A~-I 1 ~. At: ."~. r-F1 2"~ fir .::r~. IT,,--- 17. P.A :':_::. ClA ....... • ............ ._ _ _,%, .... 2 :::.~ ~:~;:1 27.;:~r~ ::'4.r~;:, "-'" r~F1 :_'-:2.0:-'~. ~'-' ;',-'-1 17.;'-1C~ [:-:.r~;12~: r.;;~ 2:~:.F1;:1 -- . • ...... ,': I" • . _ _ . _, • .... ... • .... :~: ............ 1:-:.;',[.~- .... .-.-,,,'' '-v:,;:, .-~.-"-' ........ r:;~ 1 ,~. r.~r.~ 14. Flr.i5:I.. ,v3..._ ---.~ .=,F~_ ~.--a,. F~V~ 1 =..=,;~._. .... -:-".'... F~F~ 4 I:~:.E'~ 27.00 IS.0;' 14.5E~ 17.0E~ 2'4.00 21.E~-~ 22.00 1:_::.08 20.50 ~, 1=,. . I~Fi_ _ ":'.'~ riP;_. ._ [2.:'::' ,"-'-,:,._, 1--_ , .=,v~_ _ !::':. r~n_ _ 21_. P,n_ _ 2_. Fv:'.=,, .... 24. :,"~ 16.E~E~ i 9. '30 ,-..=,;::~ '-'~ L:~: 11 ;:;', :[~ 0'-'-1 1:::.'~:-""" F-~' "-"; ._C~ :--:I .I 2._.FIF~ " - ,. ,, ...-. .... -.... =, , C:'& .=,, r~r~ .5 7 19.P.0 I:_-':.50 !5.0C~ 1,.'.OE~ I:-:.C'0 :-:'._-~.Ev.'j --' g . -s '-_-: --6.C':0 16.00 :':0.06 :~: ]'.-~o51-1 1,.-'.On 20.00 15.00 17.50 19.50 2'2.5C'~ 1;_--:.50 I:_":.50 25.50 • ~ r~r~ ~ i:~F~ F, ,'-',:~ :-:. r.~c~2. r-'-~ :12. Fv':~ 2;:_: rw'~ .:,..t ~.-~r~ 1 :-::. riF~ 27. ;~r.~ '~=~1 - ::;,W',:n~"~ "-':'.:"-':":~-~,~T F'FiRFI!iETEF.: t'IEFIN '..'~F.:IRTTI-,}~ R:-; ;: I 2I ~F~ '"'- 40 12 qr~ • __ "t~ C.', . ° . • -- 26.90 aE 4.90 1 .?,. 07 :3 21 F~n ..... " 5n '~ IE: • _._ .:.'-r L21o . _.. 4 1 :-:. 10 1:38.40 "3.73 5 2~~._ "-'=,-,.., 137.2:3 3 ,7F~_ 6 I 9 1 :~:C] 70;~:. ~'C~ ] 9 11 C1 :_:: 1 ~. "= ";-7- = "' 2. n.~ 9I 2, I~.~C'~ ".7W:?~? . 4(~ l"...'l~.'~. 4:~: TOTF~L '...'13R I RT I ON ~[.:OLIT R:_:;:/;ES'-:/'IEt-~T F'&F-.:P, HETER t';ERI;:-. 3T~9.1:9 F'RODLIC:T TrITRL SLII"I uF '-'- '-'-" '- _ .:.,.-.!L.Hr.E.:. Ft:-': .'-.: R -2..'__': 1 l. I91 1 :-::. 23 Z': + 47 ="" 5. . .4.,c. . OE: lp • - . .,~, .443 4. ':"-' D -2'.__'-":' 1 . .... i..~'-" 1 :-:, F.-'._ :-, E I .'::K -'-" ' ..61 F + 1.9"--d I. 1 :-:'3 t 2. F-.=; S +2.24 1.164 12.2'-:2: H +I. 80 ", 9~:I 1'.3.91 c'p -4 I -1.57 . .. ~'.: 6. :-:-: -y, J ~" , :--'. I=,., I. !4'-~_ 1 "-"., 7 "'-'" '' t',r_hlt.:. ' ........ TOTFIL '...'F~F..I~T!OI| R~':OUT r,'...,r.-,_.T ..... " .: f~r.~ ,.:¢', _ .I. _ -,I ~:) F'r-,-,,-J,~,-:'t .... ,,:.-_--r-i._=:ti or, z h.-_-,.,..,e bee,; o._:. l,::u 1_-- ,..._-,.. ~-.'r" ""-',',...~. • r,,:,r r,, _~. 1 i --._ ---+ .... i ,',,'~ -%. ...- . le , The consolidated data input matrix is shown at the top of the page. For each product (A to J) the total score from all (iO) panellists per parameter is shown. The data sun~nary shows the percentage variation for each par~,eter and eauh product. This information is of secondary importance although it can be usefully inspected to determine salience. o P,,D C7~ ',..O L~ ",.D C7", BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

,t~ F-~'Ttt --. , .... " , .. . . . , "., b.;F.i'Of:;T F,;/I 1667-R(l:-:,-'4/T'?> CORS:ELFIT I ON T-:ETNEEN R:3'-:ESSHENT F'£RF¢IETER'_:: 1 ") " 4 ~" 6 i" ".:-: -.""4 1 -% &,. :i: 4 c" ** AF: - 9.5 + ,."~. * 'hA + 2~1 + .o5 + :-:~ * 9! * ':'' • - "- ' o - - • - • . • * . -- • • • - . i '-'--' .+ .76 - .7A_ +l.~-q + .,.,'::~, .-" .:::;:1._ + .,"e- + .e-5 + .~"'" + .4L:: + .'~rl - .74 * "--'-" +1 A;~ + 75 + o,-~ + ~" + :-:6 + .56 * - ' * ".,,-' ! * . - • * . % • I" ''" . + .,-"~1 - .66 + .'.7:~:+ .75 +I.OC~ +" .'7".--' + .:-::::+ .--"I + .46 ~ .97 76 + "" " 4:_": ":":' + 5.. - + . car., + ,Z +! F~A ~- .,'.--.+ + 7 + ::::"; - '-'" + ,:: = .... :":' + . _" - . .o~ .... ". + ....._, . G::--" +I. ('.(: + ~,", + . 71 • .__ , -" "-' ' ~TZ:: -~1 F~A J- PTF, ,'-:: + .62 - =,A + .24 * .k:~, + .21 + .-,.- .............. "~ ~. .,-.~-':"-' - .:-:-:+ .4_--: + .~.. + .4~- ~-. .E::_--: ~-, .--1,. -~, .65 +l-.rlEl-_ ._ 3Q The table of correlations between assessment parameters provides an indication of the ways in which the parameters have been applied in the particular evaluation. In this case it can be seen, for example, that a high negative correlation has been obtained between MOUTHFULL (i) and DP.%W EFFORT (2), r = -.95. This is typical of unventilated cigarettes where the greater the draw effort the less amount of smoke is perceived in the mouth. From inspection of the correlaEions with ACCEPTABILITY [9) the relative importance of the other parameters in determining acceptability can be inferred. On this occasion one would conclude that MOUTHFULL (1), D.~AW EFFORT (2), and IMPACT (6) were particularly influential, TASTE (7) and ARO~ (8) slightly less so. rk~ fT~ ED BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

::ORF.:Et_FiT 101t ]~:ETHEEH F'F.:0DL<:TS R ............ . R C: ]3 E F G Z: C- Zr ~ '-.~ O H ! .T -!.L"O - ,5:3 + .56 + .:_::5 + .:_::~ - ,:::O - = '--4 -2-~ F1F! + • -.-...-. ~ = 4 ~ .... :'":' - - ...,,: ...... - . .L._, - • ~... + .::i;'. + . !~ + .~.~. + .56 +.22 +I.(~EI + ._=,2 + ..62 - .6:-: - .,:-' - .7~ + + 1 ::',~ 7'4 9"7 - ":":' -'- + .:_::5 - .:i~ -'- ._2 AA + - - - o i . • _ _ . - - e • - "-"-'" + .:::1 1~ + ~2 + :::~ +1 AF-I - :::R- ":":" - :::F~ + I i II I I i I -- I ! i i l l I II Ille ! . I :::F~ 4- ..':-:~ - ~.:::- 74 - .:::F~ +I F:~-~ + 7F1 + -'_:.. - -- . .... • - . • - - . _ _ . _ , I .3 - .:-::-: + .16 - .62 - .97 - .'.:-::-: + .70 +1.00 + .90 - • 94 + "-'" - .... 79" "::;~ +l.OO - - .:.-' .74 - :_:::-: - ..'--:¢1 + + .__ + .71 - .5,-' ÷ .:'% + .67 + .6.* - .:':4 - .6.1 - .6:.:: +1 -'..~ "," F,'.~ ~,-. .=,2 + 76 + 5:::- • -, .'*,'J - .,-',:. - ~::: + -- -- -- • -. _. . I • - • • • :":' - .'_:.'4 + 71 - a.:., 2=, - . 59 67 - .-'-' (" ,:, co, 84 + . -~- 61 + .76 ~:-: + ._,-. O0 - • :':6 :-:6+ 1. O0 ].. 3. I, The table of correlations between products provides an overall picture of similarities/dissimilarities between products. With one or two notable exceptions (see later) the U.K. cigarettes are positively correlated, as are the U.S. cigarettes. More specffically one can observe that, for example, cigarettes A (Peter Stuvesant Extra Mild) and D (Dunhill Superior Mild) are overall quite similar (r = .85). Similarly, cigarette A and cigarette H (Real) are, not suprisingly, very dissimilar (r = -.94). Inte,-estingly, cigarette B (Silk Cut) is rather unlike the other U.K. products and cigarette I (Fact) is not highly associated with the other U.S. products. Further analysis enables us to point to the reasons for these apparent anomolies. _ P~D kO ~O BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

• ,. . o .,: ...... • .... . . t. ,:rU,..T Id:~ 1,-.,-., -F';' 1:,:."4-"7'.ai i"Rl l!:':I F't'tL L'.Cd'I[:'AH.EIIT P.]IHL" '""1 -. I ":. C CqiF'flltEilT E I ,-,r~J'.;,'p,, .... I IC "" OF 3 ,-Cri'~L "v.,"~"T.,,,c'] ] L-Ill [I. _II'I •' 1 6•6:1:-: -" :::,':".~ ""-" :-:7 I" -i" • . - - 'f """ • 2 !. ":-'21 1 :':• -%".:;:- E:7.4:': 3 .449 ,1.9:-:7 9":'d. 42 4 .42L:: 4. 754 9z. 17 ~.'= . 1 __.':"':' 1 .42:-': ?:-:. ~t-l_ _ 6 . fl57 • 6:-::i: 99• --'3 ? . ~':50 • 5~'.'- 9'9. ~ :3 . O ~ '.=: .19'3 9. 9.9'3 "9 . ;-:;-~ I . C,O::: 10'-_-*. O0 °. s - . '-'-CG.:9!h'..tTE:S L-:F f'-:--:-:E.-;'--:IEHT F'FiRFIMETER:-; .~': PRrLr&h'-:i'S it' THE r:O!,;F'OI.]EtlT t-':F.~r:g I_ ._,--l_,r. i. £ j -.j m : IE _," ' Ill a T n ":' ":' = :' := ':''l I F'F;K:F:I'IETEF: 1 2 :-=: 1 !'IAUTHFLIL k + -:~,a - C~; + 02 • i,-i. r 2 I~F:RI.' EFFOF-.:T - .96 ~ •05 - . _- :_=:MOLffHFEEL + .:-'.2 + .46 - .15 FI'-"FE t -'~ - 2F1 4 I.-:.= :E- + .'-=.'2 + .--, - - 5 THROP:[:FEEL + ;74 + .50 + .:-:7 6 IIIF'F<:T + .9,-- + .05 + .0:-: 7 TF-I.'_--:TE + .:37 - .:-~ - .:'::'9 .... "- .~, . -" + .Og 8 Hr, LIhH + - :-: - P,::: 9 ~C'::EF'TFI.~:ILITY + .:-:2 - •40 + .:'::El KEY Y. C D E F G H I J CO-OR[' ] I.I~TE L:: F'RF, DLIC:T 1 2 :-": F'.S• E::.'TR~ MIL9 - 1. O! .:.iLl., C:UT + . 1,~ E!'ll::R:-:E:'~-' EXTR~ MILD - .45 DUIIHILL SUP MILD - 1.05 J. F". E'-::TF,~ MIL9 - .76 + MRRLI:ORO LIGHTS + .92 + i tT l-.~-r,l-p , ' . I.-,--~ " :..~ _._r._ 'r E:-':TF,:FI MILB -,- I - • "%", ,,,l. REITtL + • --.-" . FFG'T - • ~,~: - liEPIT + .79 - - .31 - .1::_: • + .63 + . !0 + • ]:_=:+ • 1:_--: + .!3 - .l:-: • 10 + .05 • 25 - .4e: • 12 ~ .'-'= .15 + .!1 • ,:,..+ "7' 1 • 65 - . 0'3 . . The principal components analysis shows here that more than 87% of the total ~ariance is accounted for in the first two components. Thus it is appropriate to plot (see later) only these two dimensions.-- C:D Tile coordinates for the plot are given but this particular version [~O of the program enables the plot to be undertaken automatically• G', BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

!}i.i"(a::T I.;1.~ ! ,- ,-. ,'-- K" ,;; 1 :-:."4.-',9> .- _ • . .................. ,.':CtF:F..E!_RT l ~'tt-I BETI,JEEN FF.:FffzLIt_-:T:I: ~" -..-..-.c.-..- . ,.q. - . H :..:,._.:,.:,I I"_:,'| r,.-,~-.-,,..," ~ -..- "" : I -,I I It" I ,'.K:..~., FI 9 C D E F ;-~ H ! J I 2 3 4 5 7 :-: 9 - .90 + .1G - •6," - •'?~ - .:-:9 + .,'_-':4 + •'95 + .9"- - •7E: + •76 + "-"-" ,",: .... • :-:~ - .:-:i -~' - "-" -.--,.:, - 15 + --, -,- .:,I -,- - • - • . . . . .-, • .,--, + 5'_-" .6:_:: - ::;K_ _ a., /..~.~ - ":":' - -"-" - 7~ + :::q + .'<':~ "- ~'" " '-'=- - + - --,,-"-"': - "-'fi+ "-' -- ff,'-~ ':'":' ,-"t'~ + ':,~ + :::!.71 + ":'--'- -- ":',-i + c-., -~ ~ o~ +. -- .- .-.,% - .__:::~ -~..;::: - .14 - .,'4 -.._.<I + ._.-'-;'~ + .,-. + .,75, - .,~,- ~', .~--. ..... :":' '-'- :::4 .94 -- , - .94 + .2.5 - .,,. - . ...... - .,:., + .. + + .9:_:: .e.,- -'- .~---5 - ~-.~-. - ~]'a - . ,.-::: - . T,? '~;] -~ " :::~ + "-' ~ .:~:4 ...... --._. , .... .:, + .,-4"- .6:': + - :21 - 41 - -" .... ~'--'+ 5:1 + ~ + 31 - -.-,.a + .:,--, • . "-' . .79 - "-"+ + .91 - .74 - .14 - .70 - :-:I - :.::2 + .-,.:. + ::::-: + .='* • o o . The table of correlations between products and parameters gives a relative profile of each of the cigarettes• It can be seen, for example, that cigarette A has relatively poor MOUTHFULL and DPAW EFFORT, very little irritation and IFLPACT, little TASTE and modest AROMA; not surprisingly it achieves a low ACCEPTABILITY. Both cigarettes G and J obtain a high relative ACCEPTabILITY but achieve this in rather different ways. Product G has good "mechanics" and high levels of irritation and IMPACT• All these features are less evident in cigarette J which, however, exemplifies greater TASTE and, particularly, AROM_A. Cigarette B (Silk Cut) has better "mechanics" than all other U.K. products and scores higher than them on irritation and IMPACT. This accounts for its displacement from its U.K. contemporaries on this occasion. Similar reasoning can be applied to cigarette I (Fict). " CD O~ x.O kZD~ BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

.. i.-.r. I[( -"-" '"" . , , ' F:ffF't':F"I" .... !:.:[~ I i~7-F,'...;" 1 :-:. "-,-, _ .. .... -" ':~ " F:;-liF'1"r:: I TE_ _ _ ._ F'LOT .... , ~,_,r'-i z,:,rr+...~.l z<:-i ~. .;~ I_.I_-'-"'~,r t~. - ° • .~-l:zc.'-_:,l .~::~:~ is C:OMF' 2 .o °° ° °.° Z -? -J2 E o-.~, ° A "° .°.° ..° o "°. "-.. ° °'° ° °. o° °'*°.. i .°°. I °°.o ~ °°'.. ! ~ " 1 - 5 li ""':" 3 1:: I I | . .,6 I i F I i H 1 ......................... -" ...... --'.'1 ;_-.~ =°o°°.°.°}°..°o- I °- -7 °° °° °" °° ..°.°°" 1. 2~ e The DELTA plot represents" a summary of the data set. It is, however, a compromise and should not be used for detailed interpretation. The relative position of the products is indicated by their key letters and the orientation of the para_meters ca** be seen by drawing lines between the negative and positive poles of each parameter. The convention adopted shows the low level of the parameter at the negative end, and high at the positive end. This particular version of the program enables the plot to be inverted about each or both of the principal components axes. Such a reorientation, about the x-axis, is shown on the next page. 0 ~0 C~ k24 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

¢= .. ° '°•... ~===b C~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

o. • ° BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

SUBJECTIVE PRODUCT ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING In considering subjective product assessment we are confronted with a cake which can be cut in several ways. Methods available can be broadly qualitative or quantitative, in-house or external, use consumers or "experts", and so on. Each procedure has its strengths and weaknesses and non in itself provides a totally reliable indication of a product's ultimate success or failure. The aim of those engaged in developing procedures should be to equip the user with an appropriate repertoire of techniques. It is the responsibility of the product deveioper or market researcher to select the best method for his particular purpose, having regard to the limitations attaching to each procedure. With changing market circumstances there is a clear imperative to anticipate % those developments which render existihg techniques impotent, or at least restrict their utility, and to provide alternative ways of dealing with new problems. By way of example, consider responses made to the advent of low 4elivery products and the rapidly emerging need to expand our repertoire to enable valid and reliable subjective assessments of cigarettes in this sector. ~i E The Woodrose method was the first techniaue which ,i achieved more or less universal exposure throughout t:.e Group. It was intended to provide a common basis for product evaluation and was developed and promulgated to satisfy the demands of the ~ middle/high tar sector. It is a method which relies on specific training of in-house personnel is, for some attributes : tel'areal to reference standards, and is an overtly formal system. Properly applied it can provide "useful information for the detailed characterisation'of those products appropriate to it. However, it was never intended to deal with products outside its range of influence and was found to be severely lacking when confronted by the need to evaluate low-tar cigarettesl That said, it remains a useful procedure and one widely employed ; in the assessment of middle/high tar products. Whether it is 0 mO employed fully, sufficiently, or enthusiastically is another matter. : ~,4 ~0 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

For specific evaluahion of low delivery products, two approaches will be discussed. That develooed in Canada - [ is a highly qualitative and complex procedure relying on extensive training but able to provide very precise characterisation~ of own and other's products. It is specifically oriented to the needs of product development and is generally acknowledged to be a very successful approach. The DELTA method, developed at GR & DC, is a quantitative procedure, simple in operation although relying on computer analysis, which, rather than ! yieiding precise characterisations, gives relative profiles of -, -a range of products and estimates of overall Similarities between a range of products. As such its utility is.d~obstrated in markets where a low delivery segment exists and the information which it provides c~n be additionally valuable to market ~esearchers interested in "mapping" products in terms of sensory characteristics. It is our central thesis that no one method is, or will be, available to answer all the pertinent questions asked of a product by product developers or market researchers. The air should be to provide a basket of techniques which are complementary and which together yield the information required -to assist decision making. With this in mind, a number of "; ! further probl~ areas have been identified. These include: the need to develop a standards-based (Woodrose type) procedure for low-delivery product assessment applicable, in circumstances i where an established mild sector does not exist: more detailed 'i -~haracterisation of the taste and aroma features of low-tar products: and the peculiar features of ultra-low delivery cigarettes. - Whatever its basis - qualitative or quantitative, "experti or consumer, any method for product assessment demands a number of individuals able and willing to be trained and subsequently available to undertake the evaluations required. The development i of a procedure is usually straighforward: its implementation % is almost always more problematic. Acknowledgement has to be made of the fact that equiping an ooerating company with reliabl~D~ methods requires an investment, by that companyi of time and C~ ~ manpower resources In many ooerating circumstances it is ~o : difficult to allow sufficient effort to be directed towards the ~£)"~i l: establishment of one, let alone several, panel procedures withou4xD .-: BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

aZtecting the normal staff work patterns. In order to achieve reliability in its evaluations, any quantitative method requires at least ten m~bers. Qualitative procedures may need fewer panellists but their individual training will take considerably longer. For any method it is useful, perhaps essential, to have back-up personnel in order not to inhibit panel operatio~ during members' absences. A panel leader is also required to train panellists and to coordinate their subsequent activities. Clearly, these necessary conditionscan impose considerable strain on the small operating cmmpany, particularly if we pursue our objective of offering a repertoire of procedures which may require more than one panel. One way of ameliorating the effect of panel operations on the day to day activities of the company is to consider the introduction of panel methods employing consumers. We have relatively little experience in this regard although our colleagues in Louisville have for some time involved "captive" consumers in a variety of product development exercises. In Southampton we are currently engaged in training a consumer DELTA panel and so far the results are encouraging. Recognising the pressures existing on manpower resource allocation, we should I believe, give more consideration to the involvement of consumers in panel activities. 8 The advantages of employing non-employees are obvious: but so are the disadvantages. Indivldua~ are not so immediately or predictably availab!e, on-site accommodation may not be appropriate an~ therefore an alternative location may have to be found: and we may have to expect moderate attrition rates. Neverthless, all things considered, the nett cost may be less than that using in-house personnel. For many situations this may prove to be the 0nly viable means of satisfying two apparently conflicting requirements:, the need to undertake reliable subjective assessment and commitment of sufficient staff manpower . to achieve a viable panel activity. In "short, more attention may have to be paid to populating the repertoire of techniques with procedures appropriate to this middle ground between .. traditional In-house panel methods and the normal oonsumer produc~__ C~ test~. Whether in-house or external, any panel will only function satisfactorily if sufficient attention is paid to maintaining a high level of individual and corporate motivation. ~'/ BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

Experience suggests that monetary inducements are not sufflclen~ - and for in-house panels are probably inappropriate. Much more important is the individual's perception of worth in the specific activity. By reinforcing his status as a valued contributor to an ~mportant function and by maintaining his involvement through discussion of the project, the risk of loosing, or perhaps worse, dlsaffectinq, trained personnel can be significantly reduced. This requirement places a considerable onus on the panel leader, whoshould be selected on the basis of his ability to deal with panel members sympathetically and in ways which sustain a high personal commitment to the panel operation. Trained panellists, whether staff or consumers, are a valuable asset whose worth must be acknowledged, and whose activities supported~ at the highest level. The development of panel procedures appropriate to consumers may also be one way of reconciling the differences in output from traditional in-house "expert" panels and consumer tests. The major impediment in this area derives from the differential use of language employed by "experts" and consumers. Somewhat provocatively, one might suggest that the "expert" does not know what the consumer likes but can describe the experience very well, whereas the consumer does know wbat he likes but cannot describe the experlenc~ very weli~ One feature of future evaluation techniques which oughL to be borne in mi~d is the need to facilitate the product developer's understanding of what the conshmer is telling him. It is quite possible to use consumer vocabulary as the basis of a panel method. Consensus amongst consumers /egarding [a) the most useful parameters of discrimination and (b)" the'particular word to be employed to describe that parameter can, through careful elicitatlon procedures, be reliably achieved. By using consumer-based terminology the training of the naive panells facilitated because the burden of inculcating the members with descriptors and terms outside their opm immediate experience is'removed. The result is a highly reliable operation based upo~ an albeit limited number of parameters° The penalty to be paid is the l~ck of detailed information on the more subtle features of the product(s) which the developer may require to. effect appropriate modifications. Again we have to trade-off the benefit~ of panel reliability following short training against the lack of fine detail in its assessments. This in turn argues j, [ 4~ q> ~D ~D co 4D BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

/ for a range of ccmp!ementary procedures which again unfortunately imposes higher d~mands on manpower resources. Once more we enter the vicious circle described by the need to achieve a high standard of product evaluation at zero cost. In order to maximize the effectiveness of subjective product assessment methods, it is probably necessary to re-examine the purpose of such procedures, to objectify their aims and, if possible, to quantify their effectiveness. It could be argued that, given a 'sufficiently precise and reliable range of internal methods, traditional consumer product tests could assume a lesser Lmportance in the product development/marketing process. Whether or not confidence in such methods could ever be sufficient to totally remove, Or even drastically reduce, the need for consumer prcduct testing is debatable. It is, however, possible to contemplate some redistribution of resources, more towards panel methods, particularly consumer panel methods, and away from increasingly expensive field trials. Whatever mix of internal/ external evaluation schemes is arrived at we must endeavour to ensure°that the most cost-effective and reliable techniques are encouraged in order to provide the best advice for competitive product development. t i O0 J BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

W -4 0 0 ea 0 e- 3 i-I* o I" m (D ii mn "I" i i.ii. 0 i.ilh 86169 01 o, , i i ~J v t ", ql i; Zi I ,o i i I': i • ! i ! i 0~ • ! I:i I . o"

J i f! ~ . .I :I "l o ° : | • • - °°o~ • , -~ ° o° -'... ", -, : °. . ~ . : . !- • /::° ,~ ;'~.0 'L..M BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

t~1~' "*~ ,°~ ~rt A,~.~'-S,~I;:,'.N~ OF "HE n - "" i .~II NULSANC>.. Z, SPI'C~"S C,F S.~.'OI;J£NG r,o o-,, ",,o ",LD OO BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

?.S.~J;SSMENT OF THE "NUISANCE" AS]']-',C']'S OF S;.IOKING ......................... BACKGROUND Recent decades have seen "the development of two major challenges to the industry, one in the form of the smoking and health debate and the other, more contemporary, in the social disapprobation of smokers. The consequences of the latter dcve!opment have been seen as potentially more embarrassing to the industry since its effects take place in the immediate social arena rather than at the level of public debate. It is therefore necessary to examine the nature and extent of this process, and means available to offset it. This paper will concentrate on the irritation or annoyance responses of others to active smoking in their presence. The related issue of passive smoking, (the question as to whether or not non-smokers are susceptible to smoking related diseases as a consequence of inhaling ambient smoko),will not be detailed except to note that with the exception of young children and persons suffering cardiac impairment, serious health consequences for the passive smoker have not, as yet, been established. • J Mounting evidence exists that non-smokers become annoyed when individuals imoke in their presence. In a Canadian survey, Shephard and Labarre (i) found that only 12% of non-smokers reported being unaffected by cigarette smoke and in most public facilities where smoking was allowed, at least half of the non- smokers reported being inconvenienced. Annoyance seems also to manifest in other emotional reactions. Jones (2,3) has shown non-smokers to be more tense, highly strung and emotionally upset when exposed to cigarette smoke than when exposed to clean ambient air. O ~O Co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

Other adverse reactions suffe[-ed by non-::mokers in the presence of ci@arette smoke include irritation of eyes .,nd up?mr respiratory tract. Shephard (4) noted that mo]-e than ]~,]if of his non-:;moker sample reported eye watering, and to a lesser extent, stinging of the eyes in the presence of cigarette smoke. Rhinorrhea was another con~nonly reported symptom. Weber et al (5) have studied the irritating effects of cigarette smoke in relation to actual concentrations of the main irritants. It was found that eye irritation increased with each of the following measures: CO, Formaldehyde and Acroleine. Dryness and blocking of the nose only showed small increases with concentration, whilst rhinorrhea and itching reflect a constant increase with exposure. Relating to this, Johansson and Ronge (6) have shown that eye and nose irritation attributable to cigarette smoke is maximal in warm d~y air and decreases with a small rise in relative humidity. The question of which components of - tobacco smoke are responsible for these irritations was also addressed by Weber at al, who exposed subjects to either total sidestream smoke or Cambridge filtered sidestream gas phase. Annoyance reactions were present in both conditions, suggesting that the gas phase is responsible. However, objective and subjective irritatiens were significantly lower when subjects were exposed to the gas phase alone. Perhaps because the irritants in tobacco smoke are contained in the vapour phase, which tends to condense on the particles, the irritating effect of total sidestream smoke is mainly due to the role of the particles which carry the irritants and deposit them in relatively high concentrations on mucous membranes. Finally, Basu et a! (7) have recently suggested that a way in which irritants may affect the eyes is by breaking the pro- corneal tear film, since this break up exposes sensory nerve endings of the cornea directly to surrounding air. mo ~D ". Oo BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

It is im[)ortant to distinguish between physical irritation nnd psychocenic responses to that i!-ritntfi:on most commonly expressed as annoyance. Stone (8), fo~- example, has demonstrated that whether or not a non-smoker becomes annoyed by the presence of cigarette smoke in the work environment is determined by his work involvement such that those involved in highly demanding work are not as annoyed by the presence of smoke as those individuals involved in less demanding tasks. Similarly, GR&DC resea~:ches (9) show that annoyance reactions are substantially situation specific such that one smoker in a waiting room could be expected to generate considerable attention to the physically irritating nature of his smoke and associated annoyance reactions (la:~ely due to the perceived inprooriacy of his action) whereas the smoke present in public houses, although in significantly greater proportion, would not be expected to generate the same attention. Ryla~der (iO)has taken this point further in suggesting that many adverse reactions to smoke are psychosomatically based, arising as a consequence of some individuals' belief that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke affects their health. S~ch reactions would be influenced by underlying attitudes, beliefs, and socio-economic conditions. It is possible that such a psychological mechanism may, in some cases, contribute to upper respiratory symptoms of asthmatic origin, for example, where psychosomatic factors are known contributors - the failure of research .to demonstrate adequate dose-response relationships between ambient smoke and irritancy reactions might be taken to support the Rylander viewpoint. The incidence within the U.K. population of sensitivity tO nuisance aspects of smoking has been researched systematically by GR&DC since 1978, when a consortium of cigarette manufacturers received the results of Operation Aquarius (ii). This study analysed the pressures on the U.K. smoker as they were perceived to arise from the family, wor]:place, and social e~,vironment. CD ~o ~O CO BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

Such pressure was s~l~ed up by the finding that two in three U.K- smokers reported somctimes refraining f--ore ::rocking ~iucc ~hey though~ that other people might find their nmok~ng a nui.:;,:nce. Additionally, 30% of smokers believed that umoking was harmful to the health of non-smokers and a clear social class ~-e!ation- ship was revealed - the higher the social class, the higher the likelihood of refraining from smoking in the face of potential disapprobation. This level of awareness of the social ~%acceptability clearly represented an escalatiOn of the .levels found in an earlier 1976 survey (12) when only a small mino~-ity of the santple appeared to be aware of dislike or disapproval of non-smokers. Also in 1976 a G~q&DC qualitative research indicated support for the view that the passive smoke~- objects more to the smell or sight of cigarette smoke than to its irritant effects (13) This included fresh arid stale sidestream aroma and gene~-al debris in the form of ash and butts. A more recent qualitative research, Project Virgo (14) indicates that for their part, the majority of smokers appreciated that cigarette smoke was unpleasant for non-smokers because of the smell, stale smell in the hc~;ne, and smoke in the eyes. Project Libra (15),undertaken in 1979/1980, included items relating to social unacceptability, finding the majority of smokers to believe that "nowadays it is much less socially acceptable to smoke" and that "cigarette smoking is a dirty habit". More importantly, the number of smokers bel~eving smoking to be harmful to the health of non-smokers had escalated (to 36% average) particularly amongst highly'dissonant smokers (high repeat, unsuccessful quitters) where the proportion rises to 50%. Project Aries (16) represents the latest in this l~ne of researches and is an inquiry into public responses to other people smoking. The overall findings emerging so far are that smokers appear to be as aware of the annoying elements of smokirr~- CD as do non-smokers. In this connection smell, smoke, mess,'debri~o and damage all receive mention, with the important caveat that degree of annoyance is related to the situation in which the ~-~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

It is possible from Aries data to ccnsider ccnstuner perception of components of the smoking experJe, nce seen to be nuisanceworthy, and also to evaluate the relative nuisance we[ghtings given to these components. This information appears as Figure I, from which it can be seen that the rank ordering of nuisance value is, with minor exceptions, preserved for non-smokers, ex-s.~,okers and smokers alike: NUISANCE RATING OF COMPONENTS OF THE SMO]'ING EXPERIENCE (MOST TO LEAST) S~IELL OF STALE SMOKE MESSY ASHTRAYS SMELL OF SMOKE ON CLOTHES/HAIR GENERAL SMOKY ATMOSPIIERE EXHALED SMOKE IRRITATION TO EYES CI GA}ZET'fE BU'fTS SMELL OF SMOKE ON FUPdqISIIINGS CIGARETTE ASH VISIBLE STREAM OF SMOKE SF.~LL OF FRESH SMOKE SMOKERS A considerable problem for interpretation of this type of information lies in the fact that position on the list might suggest that the higher up an item is, the more deserving it is of remedial action. An alternative view, not without support in qualitative researches, is that the higher an item is, the more it serves as a useful component on which to hang much more basic stereo;typing views held by the non-smoher of the smoker himself. In this perspective, nuisance aspects could be seen c~ ~O Oo BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

6 ~s an hci'.-archLcal set of alternatives for c'<pt',:s.-.~ng Jn an Jn~]irect fashion a basic anti~)athy for the .:n',okur type. Evidence for the existence ofsuch'" ste~-eotyping bchaviour has been demenst'.-ated in a GR&DC study (17) which used -zhort descriptive profiles of "typical" smokers, ex-smokers .Tnd r~on- smokers, to generate descriptions of the kind of personality attributes which smoking, ex-smoking and non-smoking subjects" supposed such surrogates would have. The results showed non- smoking subjects to have mote rigid, stereotypical and negative expectations of the smoker character than either of the other subject groups. This can be seen in Figure 2, a principal components plot of the results indicating the segregation of smoker types into a class tightly defined as i~-responsible, easily addicted, weak willed and with low health consciousness. A possible corollary of this view is that removal of components of the nuisance heirarchy will lead to intensification of references to those items remaining in the heirarchy, and ultimately a re-emergence of more direct stereotyping of the smoker. This presents us with a long term research problem requiring researches into means of enhancing the image of the smoker but should not distract us from a consideration of the real medium term marketing opportunities offered by innovations in the field of reducing the nuisance potential of the product. The marl:eting opportunity is real for two reasons: i) The growing high proportion of "dissonant" smokers in the popu3ation as considered by Projects LIBRA and ARIES indicates a smoker population who are increasingly concerned about their social visibility. Any means of reducing the extent to which their smoking draws attention to itself is likely to be a welcome and attractive product proposition. O BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

ii) Cu~-rcnt low delivery evaluation rescal'ch conducted under Project 3rcmley (18) shows a clearly significant trend for referunces to the visible aspects of the cigarette (e.g. sidest~-eam smoke, ash stability etc.) to increase, the lower the delivery level of smoker under consideration. With growing trends in contemporary markets to high dissonance/I low delivery smoker segments the requirement to research means of i rendering the product less liable to nuisance attributions is important, not least as an anticipatory strategy for those markets yet to experience full development of smoking and health and social unacceptability conce!-ns (and where implimentation of such research may not he interpreted as defensive/placatory). CURRI~T 2]'~SEARCH GR&DC is cur~_-ent!y committed to a programme of research into means of ameliorating the negative aspects of sidestreara as perceived by the consumer, i.e. appearance, irritauncy and aroma. The consumer researches indicate that aroma and irritancy, in that order, are perceived as the most critical of sidcstre~m l'e]ated nuisances. This observation belies the central importance of sidestream visibility, however, as a cu__ee from which irritancy and aroma consciousness to some extent derives. Qualitative 1-esearches indicate that the extent to which smoke is visibly di~ce~-nable in an environment relates to the incidence of aroma/ irritancy references. Psychology Group's ihvolv~ment in this programme is concerned with subjective evaluation of sidestream smoke by naive consumers and in-h0use panellists. The objective is to establish the determinants of sides~ream perception in normal social contexts (with particular regard to visible properties) and to develop a panel-based method for evaluating visibility, irritancy and aroma of sidestream. C~ ~o C~ ~D BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

Research is now planned to consider co1~textual effects on si!estree~ visibility perceptien, (i.e. under c~.ndltions of varied location, ntu,~_bers of people, ratios of smokers to non- smokers etc.) video film will be used substantially as stimulus material in what will be a further series of magnitude estimation inquiries. The value of video lies in the capacity to standardise and repeat what is nor~aa]iy a highly variable stimulus (sidestream smoke), and to allow us to seperate visible aspucts of the sidestream frem the irritancy and aroma effects normally associated with it. For ex~p!e, a current experiment involves smokers,ex-smokers ~nd non-smo~.e~-s in viewing video film of a non-smoking actor being approached by a smoking actor from various different angles and stepping at various different proximities. The subjects' task is to ~-ate their o~vn perceived comfort or lack of comfort were they the actor being approached, in this manner, it should be possible to discern the effect of open smoking on social distancing. The development of a panel-based technique for assessment of sidestream will be completed within the current year. The objective is to provide qualitative description and quantitativ~ estination of visibility, irritancy and aroma characteristics of cigarette sidestream. The emphasis will be upon close modelling to real life circumstances in terms of exposure to sidestream se~.ples, and the analytic base will be comparative (that is, allowing direct comparison of sidestreams of different products for significance of difference across visibility, irritancy or aroma components). One of the problems which might be anticipated for panel- based evaluation of sidestrea/n is the inherent instability of such judgements, particularly across time. The reason for this ~o k~D ~O BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

8 2riot to studying sJdestrea~m obtrusiveness in complex social situations it J s necessary to estab]{sh some cf the basic functions of perceiving sidestream visibility under more cont~-olled circum- stances. This requirement has recently been fulfilled in a study of the effects of sidestream attenuation. Recent technical developments have made it possible to reduce the visible sldestream of a burning cigarette. However, it is clearly necessary to assess how any objectively measurable reduction is perceived in s'~bjective tea-ms. Using a standard psycho~hysical procedure (magnitude estimaticn), an experiment was performed where the visibilities of the aides,ream from th--ee cigaz'ettes Ccontrol, 30% reduction and 35% reduction) were compared. Equal s~zed_ s~cuDs.. . of current smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers eva!'cated the two test cigarettes with respect to the ccntroI =~a~-,=~ _ -. ..... six background conditions described by their shade (high ccnt:'ast to low contrast) in terms of their reflectance ]e\,e.~s. It was found that actual reductions in s idestrc~:m of 30% and 35% were perceived in terms of subjective estimation as almost twice these proportions (see Figure 3). However, the contrast of the background against which the smoke is seen influences how much sidestrce.~ is perceived and the discrimin=--bility between the sidestreams of the three cigarettes such that on high contrast backgrounds (white and black as opposed to greys) More smoke is seen and it is easier to detect the differences in amount of sidestream produced by the cigarettes (see Figure 4). Finally, ability to discriminate between the sidestreams produced by the cigarettes was dependent on subject type such that ex-smokers were able to discriminate between the sidestreams of all three cigarettes, whereas smokers could discriminate control and 35% but not control and 30%, and non-smokers could not discriminate 30% and 35% but found both less visible than control.-- no • c~ ~4D ~4D ~D BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

I0 is because of the hcdonic tone of judgement~ of this kind, i.e. the fact that subjective evaluations of sidestrcam quality are invested with strong overtones of pleasantness/unpleasantness, acceptability/unacceptability. It is known that hedonic judgements powerfully affect magnitude estimation and quality description of sensory stimuli and themselves chan~e significantly ever short durations of time (18). AI:~CMA .~bASKING AND COUI~TE,~ACTTON Though current 1"e~earches of sidestream smoke are concerned primarily with its visible aspect, and the role of perceived visible sidestream as a cue to perceived irritancy and aroma levels, an impol-tant consideration will be given to evaluation of odour masking and counteraction. An alternative to removal or destruction of objectinn~ble odours is to introduce other chemicals that t~ill: i) !:3dify -~--={,-=4 odour ) quality Ln order to make ) it more acceptable. ) This techniquz ~s usually callei odour quality 2~SKII;G. ii) Reduce perceivea malodour ) intensity to an accept- ) able level. ) This technique is usually called odour intensity COUnTErACTION. An understanding of masking and counteraction is best achieved in the context of asking the general question: "How does the olfactory syst~,~ process odour mixtures?" fED Cr~ ~uD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

]i In theory, a mixture of two components may smell (I) as strong as the sum of the perceived intensities of the unmixed components, exemplifying comD!ete addition; (2) more intense than the sum of its components, exemplifying hyDeraddit~on; or (3) less intense than the sum of its components, exemplifying hypoaddJ tion. There ave three kinds of hypoaddition. In the first type, partial addition, the mixture smells more intense than the stronger component smelled alone, but less intense than the sum of the components. In the second kind, compromise, the mixture smells more intense than one component smelled alone, but less intense than the other. In t1~e third kind, compensation, the mixture smells weaker than both the stronger and weaker components. In investigations of binary odour mixtures, the most co:croon finding is partial addition. From the .~t~:dpoint of odour engineering, counteraction is achieved when the addition of a second component ("co,:nteractant') to a malodour~]t causes overall odour intensity to d~crcose and this may represent two possible effects, compromise or, less likely, compen-~ ation. --'- -.-.- Drexler (19) have examlncd the relationship bet;:e;-n ---_~:in-a-~- .d cettnteraction using pyridine as a malodourant mixed varicu-ly "~i~-h l~alyl acetate, linalool and lavandin oil. In respect of masking effects (that ks, how well the perceived c.ualit-: of the mixture reflects the perceived qualities of the components, as opposed to how well the perceived magnitude of the ! mixture reflects the sum of the magnitudes of the components) ! except for the lowest concentration, subjects found the perceived magnitude of the pyridine component to equal overall magnitude whe~ the stimulus was actually pyridine alone. For the mixtures howeve~D the pyridine component predominated at high intensities 5ut not ~) L~4 -.c> tJ~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

t2. ,°,. at low intensities. In fact, mixtures ccntainin~ the 3owest c:n~ccntratlcn of pyridine seemed to posset-, no pyrid-ne component; i.e. total masking. In actual applications, counteraotants ~undoubtedly work by means of a combination of counteraction and masking. Figure 5 .~llustrates this combination of effects using the pyridine/linalyl acetate, lina!ool example. ?~en there is little or no malodourant present, the second ccmpcnent or "counteractant" causes an inc,'ease in overall odcur level, the f%Lnction for the mixture falls above the main diagonal end describes a "zone of au~c~.entation". ',.Fnen there is a larger amount of malodourant present, the second component cauces a decrease in over=l! odcur level; t~he function for the mi:¢tu~e falls below the main diagonal and dezcribes a "zone of co~In~-cr-ction". When the promote-ion of malodourant in the mixture is large, malodour quality ~redominates, signifying that the quality of the second ccmvorent is ~.a~ked (note right hand ordinate of Figure 5). As the concentration, and hence propoution, of malodourant decreases the _a~m~a'~'c___n_~t malodcurous component dec~-oazes ~.~rc rapidly than does t~he overall inte.nsity of the ],.ixture au~d eventually reaches a point where it ks masked entirely by the second co.T.pon~nt - this is se~% as the "zone of maskL~.g". Genera!isatien of these findi.-.~s to the more c~.--r~ex is-=-= b of mashing and counteraction of cigarette smoke should provide a substantial subjective evaluation base on which to test the effectiveness of counteract~nt for~ulatlon, either as air freshening devices or formulations applied direct to the cigarette.~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999 O ~D t~ t_

13 THE FUTURE PERSP-C'"!VE Innovations which may ameliorate the perceived nuis~.nce aspects of cigarettes present us with a complex marketing challenge. On the negative side, removal of annoyance factors creates a vacutun which may stimulate emergence of more direct stereotyping of the smoker and conceivably contribute to renewals of aspects of the smoking and health debate. This cnlls for longer term research into e]Iba:~cJng the image of. the s,.oker. On the positive side, such developments are a marketing cpport~mitv_ ~.'~-ich., ~=~-'-..um.es a arowina. . significance in direct proportion to the extent to which low delivery (particularly highly dissonant) se-gments develop• This is particularly appropriate in the case of undeve!op::d markets where such deve!op-.ents ~.zn~-e the role of anticipatory strategy rather than ec'hic-s ".'-.i_-h .-.~y h.e construed as defcnsive or p!azmtozy. The cu'_-re-t pr~--=--'-on~e of ::eso{.zch cuncern w.~th rcduc.-::g vi.~ible sidastre_~ is appropriate for two reasons: i] ii) "= " -~ ~-~ab{litv is currently mo=.t -. -<- --¢-i_- .... - _ _ ---, =-" -_T~--:-: :- t'~s a_-_=a. 5e--i-e tl-.e ep--rent indications that cons~T..=rs vie;" smell {n" irrite-ncy of sidestream as more efa nuis~_nce than ~-ts visible aspect, visible smsk-- provides a pG'werful cue drawing attention to its o--~ smell and irritancy. Given that men_ irritation reactions to smoke are psycho- g~-.iz, it nay be expected that red'actions in visible sidestream amoDnt may well eventuate in perceived reductions of irritancy and smell in excess of any objectively measured effects. m 0 ~o ~0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

REFERE.~;" ES I o SHEP}IARD, R.J. and LASARRE, R. Current atti%udes towards smoking in Toronto. Can. J. Pub. Health, 1978, Vol. 69, Mar/Apr. 2.) JONES, J:Wi 3.) (Two papers) Adverse emotional reactions of non- smokers to secondary cigarette smoke. Environmental Psych. and Non Verbal Behav. P.125-127. 4. SHEPHARD, R.J. et al Effect of cigarette smoke on the eyes and ai~;ays. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health, 1979, 43, 135-144. . WEBER, A., JERMINI, C., and GRANDJEAN, E. Irritating effects on man of air polution due to cigarette smoke. Amer. J. Public Health 66: 672-676. 1976. . JOHANSSON, C.R. and RONGE, H. Acute irritation effects of tobacco smoke in room atmosphere. Nordisk Hygienisk Tidskrift 46: 45-50~ 1965. . BASU, P.K. et al The effect of cigarette smoke on the human tear film. Canad. J. Op~hal. 197G, 13. ~o STO"E, J.D. BREIDE::EACH, S.T. and H]E ISTRAG, N.W, Annoyance respTnses of nen-smohers to ciqa=dtte ~:ske. Perceptual and Hotor Skills,i~79, 49, 907-916. 9. B.A.T.RE?ORT NO. RD.1783-C, RES=?i=YSD, 20.1.81. IO. R'_-'-_'-_'=-~, R- (Ed.) ~nvir~rc~nta! tzbacco s~:oke effes%s cn the n=n-smcker. Univ. Geneva Zeport of ~:or;:zhop Proceeding&, 1974. O ~O o~ ~O Co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

]]. N.O.P. MARKET REZEARCH LIMITED 12. B RYA.NT, H. 15. 16. 17. 18. A co.,~nenta~'y on: The main findings of Operation Aquarius, Aug. 1978. Qualitative study into the accept- ability of smoking. N.O.P. Market Research Ltd. ]977. B.A.T. REPORT NO. RD.1412-RESTRICTED, 13.9.76. ENGLAND, GROSSE :& ASSOCIATES A qualitative study of smoking i benefits and motivation (Project Virgo) prepared for B.A.T. Co. Ltd., Feb. 1979 B.A.T. REPORT NO. RD.1670-R/~.STRICTED, 23.4.79. B.A.T. REPORT NO. RD.!697-C, 18.10.79. B.A.T. REPORT NO. RD.!743-C, 20.5.B0. B.A.T. R]~PCRT NO. RD.1783-C, RESTRICTED, 20. i.51. B.A.T. REPO.qT NO. RD.1628-~ESTRICTED, 15. ]1.78. TRANT, A.S. , PA;qGEOP~, R.M. and LITTLE, A.C. 19. CAIN, I':.S. ~--" DREX/ER '" J f 2": o Potential fallacy of correlating hcdoni • _'espe]]::~-s wLth FhysJcal and chemical -, T . 1981 ~6 measur~ ...... .~. -. Food Sci , , , Sccp~ -n~ eva!uaticn c= odour countcrnction ~-H :~:. ;<ing. A~in. ~ v Acad. S-_i., 1974, 237, 427-439. w kO BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

STALZ S :-.~XE A.5 HTR.~, Y $ S ~UET.L OF S,v, CXE ON CLOTHES/ItAT R GE: .~ E .~.A/.. 5~CJ;EY AT:'~S~ME~ EX]!3,L£D $MOI~E TO ~YXS IJ U'7~S .~ :c--. t.Z. Ci" St~3K-- C:; FU3;~IS~: ::;--S C I G;,~T.2 T~- ASU V1 S'~ 3T..r ST.~£X~'I OF S:'_rL'- ~ Y F.r~L~.S,~ $ ,'o2-" S v~:.~--,~ 5 ',\' '0 \~ ~ ~\"~',\' ~',\\ \\ ~', \ "."\ ~ \~.. \\ \,, \ '~ \ \\ \', ",,\\ \ \\ \\'.. \\ \ \\'~ ~',\\\',~ ~\',.'~\" \\\\\\\X\\\\X',J """"'"''" ""'~': "'""'" : : "': """''"l ~' \\*~'~ ~' ~'"""~"~\ "'\X\\\\ \\\\~'X I ~ \ \\ \\'. ~ \ \x ~ \', ~ \\\\\',',X', ~.\ J t J;.v.--. .... ". ........ • .... . • • .-.',-.,'-.-. ,'-,',,.,,.,J lfC-." ".'.'. : "-".'.. .'.- :-. ".-.'. :-: -: :'j • , ° • o , , - ° . , I)•] 1,'x,v./z*',, ..... ,=,.,. .. , ,..,,=,,' 3 ~,~[.-. "." ".- ". "". "..'. -" -." -. ".- " t .-" -."i )..-T,-': -':" .-T ~° -'ill. m C~ ..i:::u C BATCo document for Legal Services Health Canada 19 May 1999

FIGURE 2 NON-SMOKER PERSONALITY ATTRIBUT IONS • ~OT EASILY ADDICTED Q -~-_ .C-- .-. B .6 • ° \ KEY ~-D ~-_-'~"-.--- I. Ee a-r:, ...... c_--_--_-z-2 ) .._ ... =_ 2. Averac~,_ _a~i:r:-i~--'-~":~ ,., -r'-: " -2 3 UT'~=:: ° - " 4. Tolerant ) _ 5. Recent, recretful, ............ 6. int:!=__ ~... 7. Tolerant )Ncn-smz~-er 8. Intelcram.t) profil~s 9. Self C c-- C BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

Ff~;URE 3 OBSERVED PERCENTAGE REDUCTION IN StDESTREAM VISIBILITY R EI.A'IIVE TO CONTROL .- . . . • 2° ° °. • . I- 30 ........... "~35 OBSERVED PER CENTAGE REDUCTION tO0 90 EO I i ! ...:.-" "'"'-../: .~-'" X , / f i z Z ; / .--" I x / I i " i".o t ~.5 ] . 0 7 9 0 20 30 Z, 50 E3 BLACK WHI'iZ REFL EC'IA;,~CE 0 "-.0 0 0 BATCo document for Legal Services " Health Canada 19 May 1999

1.-' I.~;U]~ 4 • ESTII4ATED SI_D_ESTREAM VlSII31tllY AS A FUNCTION OF BACKGROIJI~p R_E[!...E.CTANCE o F__STII~ATED SIDESTREAM ;,/IS; sILrr'/ I 60O 53O .- - . - ° °'%%.. • o ,.' °~ ~ 0 • . • . ° • ..., * . .', • ° °~ j " BLJ, CR ~:--'~ REFLEC'L~NCE ~c ----- T30 • ;..:L .... "~ 35 • . °''" - : " °- CD r',J O r BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

ESTIt4ATED FUNCTION L" L ~ j~l ~"LJ% t|. SID_.EST__ RE-/: ! ._\,JS.L_I?ILIIY aS A OF ea CKC, R OtJI_~9 R_.Ej.~]_.EC_T&N_._C_.E , . ** - . • , . ESTIMATED SIDES~'I~EAI-4 VISIBILITY J 600 530 3~ " 3 o~o ~Q • o.. • ° .." " ° ° ° ° o:* .- • . °." . • 0 ° ° o \ -. • ° o'= . • . '.w,L. • . * III °. X -\', t -'t • % ,11, BLACK ¥,':-.TZ REFI.ECT, ANZE T'---'-- C ----': T 30 .;:.L .... T 35 8 • ; - .- . ,. • • "* :. . 0 0 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

FIGURE 5 ODOUR COUNTERACTION AND M~.SKING EFFECTS X C < o, .° .. 4O 35 3O 2=+ L ZONE OF C Obq~ TE PACT I ON .... .'r r---- -.? -' --:'-Agl 9": +" / • : ?'[E .F v_::S'-ZXC- +,,. • i5 3D / - ,~ 15 2C 3O 25 ! I ! - r. .n I zD PERCEI%q~D ~tAGNITUDE O.:" ~'_A.LODOR/d~T ~3LO.*~E k.O .CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

.-4 0 0 I2. o 3 o r- ID Im ID ii '-I- (D !i00 69 01 ( i ,i i ,i b~ • I~ ii Ii~ ] . . l i '. ~ ', • ° t '...I .1 "g. , ,l • I ..' ,t * ! ' ~ I'~IZ

,,aD: .,'-',d, 6661, AelN 61, epeueo q3,1eeH • sao!AJeS le6e'l Joj 3,uemnoop OOlVB ":"i"-"--~.- ~ "II ,! o : .: :...--.'i..-._ . j.:..~-.:_ . "" • • . : - ..-: . " .. -. .o ~ • ;~ o. • .~ *. ~...o " , ". • " "" " :- '-.-.-':_L-, - " • . . -.. .( < o.- k. .'--, !. i: - - ~io o. 5 o • : : .o ," . ~ o . ;7... ". [: -. .fl -[ . , , "~:. -. . o. . . ." . -" ...- . ~ .,~.~ ;...-- - • . '7 ~ .. .,- , - - ". ~':. • . " ,i ~_.__:,.. ".': ,,.~.w- ~,,.~: :,~,~-. " " . ..: - ...-.. " "- . - ~." ""-...."%~ : ,. . .;...-'~ r"..,,::-..--,-- ... ,-_. " : , " .. -" - . ...'[_~ .,,- . .,:.., .... -"-- " " .: ~ :'." : . ~: .'. a.--'.:-": :. "- . • . . . :. " .7... .. : ...~- . - . .~.. . .. - - :.._ • .. "~,.~.~. . " " ' ~..- ,: ~_ '-- ---- " _~:_ .'..... L-. ..... - .~ -" .r.- _ ,.: "~: ...... . • . .........-- .... , .... , ....... . :~ ,~ ~_ - _ .... ..:~," _~.,a~~-;-':.'':'~-~'-: ...... a ......... o .... --':-_'-_-,It • .~ ~ ! ." ::'--.~'-"'.:"-~-'- ".: .... ":'-'i-,---~- • : :-: ---_:e1 ~"~1~. 2/ • " ....-, : . ~, . . • . - ..:. . - .- -. • .o .o o • o "~ -:., i.. x -4 ., , ;,~ . .... -.. , ,.- ~,. o.' . * . "~ . . . o,. ~.; . . ; . - .., .o ~.,~,.'.'...%-~ . . .,.~. . . ... ; . ..-.'.'. . ... .:. "..,..,.'~,Q'~.,~.-~. .;. ...-.. .';~ ~ • . .. . .~ ~ .:.. . "i ...;',,,,, ,,-'~:~.~ -~..-.~_. : . " :..<~,.[ . .. -...- ." . ..... - :-:7:~'. -~--~f~k':;~:~'a}F.--'.T~':,~- .-_ ..:-~:.~- :. • ... - . "- ". °-;- ~ -~,----':~-'="" ,L''.'c .... - " • ,.. • - '.~'" . . ;--'"~"~ ~ .-,,. --';-'-.',a~-_:. " G ""..~, " .. - .- "';'~ i,~ • .. , • ~ ;. . ,. , . ,_ ~ --,----:.:: ...... ~.:- ..,~,.~.~-,., ,,,,, •., .... .,.=.; .- ,- .:~. ~_ .... , ; ." --. '~--,a:,~>~~5~ ~ ~, • -." " .-".--.-':.;.. "~, ~~'~:~-~'r--.{---~ ~--" ..... o ..... ~Ta72--{.'.V" " ." ~" .g'" . ~--; .. ~- . "~ *'4":..~-~~ ~ -e._'e,~ - e'," " :z~.~ • "- : " : - t .. . .2" .-'-" ;'..> ~X.L',:.~.~E-'.q'I '-:--,~*--~f'i" ~"- ..... •

PRODUCT COMMUNICATION IN THE CONTEXT OF VARYING DEGREES OF ADVERTISING RESTRICTION Advanced Western societies currently exhibit a trend toward adoption of restrictive stances to the advertising of tobacco products. This prompts a re-evaluation of our understanding of the process by which product information is transmitted to the consumer. Such a re-evaluation requires two processes : a) Consolidation of existing intelligence on the subject of product communication. Communication in this sense is taken to include established advertising media (television, cinema, radio, print and posters), parallel communications, point of sale environment and pack design. b) Appraisal of the consequences of degrees of restriction applied to any of these channels of communication, and the extent to which these may be offset by increasing activity in remainin~ channels or by development of hitherto unacknow- ledged means of communication. t I i i BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999 m P,,.; CT~ C CO

Historically our understanding of product communication has on the simple PRODUCT I focussed CONSUMER relationship. Two major developments in contemporary markets now make this perspective less tenable : a) The raising of consumer consciousness of the smoking and health issue and their gradual development of a more sophisticated perception of advertising material. This places additional emphasis on ~nderstanding the role of consumer motivation and attitudinal stance in product choice and usage : PRODUCT ~ CONSUMER I b) The development of restrictions on advertising. This highlights the normally less prominent role played by the setting within which these product/consumer interactions occur : ENVIRONMENT PRODUCT ~ ~ CONSUMER J O ~O Cz~ ~O O ~O BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

3 To be fully effective, our efforts to understand the problems of product cummunication in media restricted environments should take into account the systemic nature of this problem which involves issues of product marketing, consumer psychology, and the sociology of mass communications. Preliminary approaches to some of these interacting relation- ships have been made, or are planned,by Psychology Department and it is perhaps useful to briefly summarise these : THE PRODUCT CONSL~MHER INTERACTION Our researches in this area have so far been concerned with pack design, for which substantial antecedents exist within the group. An earlier report (i) investigated the ways in which consumers descriptively discriminate between pack images and relate these images in turn to attributions of expected smoking characteristics of cigarettes contained by such packs, and personality/d~mographic characteristics of persons assumed to be most likely to be seen with such packs. This approach has recently been augmented with an application of the DELTA method to an evaluation of the extent to which presence of brand identifiers and pack designs actively modify inidvidual perception of the sensory attributes of cigarettes as smoked (2). This latter form of image measurement has more power than its predecessor since the relationship between image factors and tangible sensory experience is quantified and could therefore be used as an element in the total product desig~ process with a greater degree of assurance than is currently possible. This O ~o C~ ~O -m= O O , | i BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

research has recently been replicated on a consumer sample. Further researches are planned to establish alternative statistical means of arriving at this form of brand image measurement, and to investigate the quality and amount of influence associated with component elements of the image, e.g. colour, pattern, area of colour, graphics etc. The visual prominence of pack images is also being investigated both in the overall sense of the pack's capacity to 'catch the eye' and in the detailed sense of the way in which particular parts of information on the pack may transmit themselves into the consciousness of the consumer in a selective manner. Currently, a two-field tachistoscope is being used to compare visual prominences of a range of U.K. packs as perceived by a consumer population controlled for own brand. (A tachisto- scope contains a visual field onto which stimuli such as packs may be exposed for precisely measured durations under controlled illuminations). The experimental design uses the ascending method of limits, that is, each pack to be measured is presented to the subject in a series of short, regularly spaced exposures starting at subliminal (below conscious recognition threshold) levels and proceeding in sub-millisecond increments through stages ~of partial recognition of information on the pack to the stage of full recognition. Completed pilot work indicates : a) High order differences in overall recognition time between packs. For example, the State Express Medium Mild pack is slightly more CD Cr~ ~O CD• BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

5 prominent than average in these trials at a mean recognition time of 5.7 milliseconds. This compares with some of the solid co!our packs averaging around 7.8 milliseconds. However, the performance of all the packs in the exercise is substantially outstripped by the Marlboro pack which delivers a 3.16 millisecond threshold. b) Equally large differences in detection thresholds for partial or emergent detailing on packs. Consistent trends indicate that chevrons have high Lmage prominence but wi~h the tendency for upward pointing chevrons to draw attention to themselves, and downward pointing chevrons to draw attention to that which they point at. Script has a high recognition value,as do vertically differentiated light/dark sequences. c) Differences between consumers in terms of responsiveness to particular emergent pack detailing and overall recognition thresholds (controlling for individual differences in visual acuity). This type of finding will also be referred to in the next section. THE CONSUMER PRODUCT INTERACTION Researching the way product image attributes transmit themselves to the consumer may be usefully complemented by taking O cr~ O ~o BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

6 the problem from the ouher direction and ccnsidering the way in which stable attributes of the consumer condition his/her receptiveness to particular image based appeals. It is well known that certain perscnality types prefer (and indeed are physiologically more responsive to) particular colours. This applies at the simplest level for extraverts and red, and introverts and the colour blue. Similarly, the attractiveness of particular patterns is personality related such that angular and pointing designs (for example, the Marlbcro chevron) have more appeal for the extravert. A more subtle approach currently in the pilot stage considers visual imaging or day and night dreaming. Preliminary evidence indicates that although no difference exists in terms of night dreaming, smokers self report significantly more day dreaming than non-smokers. Such a difference may translate itself into a differential responsiveness between these groups to appeals based on imagery. This possibility is reinforced by the apparent finding that there are thematic differences in the day dreaming of smokers and non-smokers such that smokers engage in si~ificantly more day dreaming with achievement oriented themes. THE CONSUMER - ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION The ways in which the consumer's attitudinal constitution is affected by attitudes prevalent in the broader social environment, and the way in which this in turn affects product choice and usage, is receiving attention in the LIBRA (smoking --- O ~o and health related attitudes) and ARIES (smoking and social c~ disapprobation) report series. .Much of these researches has a potential spin-off in BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

developing our understanding of differential responsiveness within the consumer population to pro and anti cigarette advertising. THE PRODUCT - ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION As primary media channels become restricted, greater emphasis must be placed on effective point of sale and parallel communi- cations. Optimisation of these resources may also be usefully contributed to by basic research. At this time two possible methods are being evaluated : a) The use of projection tachistoscopes to examine visual prominence of packs and brand advertising material en ensemble, or in the usual setting in which they are likely to be found. The point of sale environment is particularly rich in visual imagery, and the practice of lining packs in mixed rows leads to a complex set of interactions both with/n packs: and between packs : H/ o I.o H', BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999 ====.~= O CT'-, O

8 b) Such interactions will overlay the individual pack prominences currently being studied in the two-field tachistoscope study previously alluded to. The advantage of the projection tachistoscope is that visual stimuli can include controlled exposures to projected 35mm photographs of entire point of sale scenes. An additional aspect of point of sale behaviour is that of visual search or eye gaze. Consumers adopt particular search strategies in point of sale situations which are significantly modified by the structural characteristics of ~he display (e.g. vertical and horizontal disposition of shelving) and the interactions between different pack designs. The basic image prominence of a pack design can be augmented or detracted from significantly by its positioning in the structural array and the pack designs it is placed in proximity with. Visual search strategy can now be researched by visual saccade monitoring equipment which allows eye gaze routes to be mapped out as they are determined by particular point of sale ensembles. The use of video recording cameras to monitor actual point of sale behaviour taking place in vivo. CD O~ ~D BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

This research approach will take some of the researches outlined as close to the real life situation as we are likely ~o get. Video films may also be useful to us when used as stimulus material in qualitative researches on parallel communication material. THE PRODUCT - CONSUMER - ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION This represents the most challenging of all the research categories requiring our attention, and it deals with the sociology of mass communications in the broadest sense of the ways kn which information enters and flows through social networks at community and national levels. Mass communication at the national level is a specialised area of research in which political economists, media sociologists and economic psychologists are currently quite active. Psychology Department now has representation on the European Colloquium of Economic Psychologists and the broader issues of media restriction are receiving attention by this multi-disciplinary group. Additionally, literature reviews are to be assembled on this subject. Mass communication at community level has received more attention at this stage in Project Whisper. O O% O O~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

I0 The purpose of this research is to consider the ways in which informal or grass roots 'gossip' networks act to disseminate information through small communities. Progress to date has included literature review and the formulation of a field research strategy. The research hinges on the works of Doob (sociolcgist) and Rogers (psychologist) who have respectively outlined the way in which social relationship networks affect rate and amount of information flow, and the way in which individuals with particular sociodemographic and personality profiles effect originations, restrictions and re-dlrections in this information. Most of this research has concentrated on the diffusion of innovations (particularly innovative agricultural practices in third world commmunities) but is equally appropriate to the diffusion of brand information ~nd use habits. The focus of Project Whisper has been on the role of individuals who may be regarded as models or opinion leaders within their communities. Such individuals, who can be pinpointed by characteristic sociod~ographic, sociometric and psychological traits have been referred to in the literature as diffusers, opinion leaders, technological gatekeepers, sociometric stars etc. They seem to occupy the points of maximum intersection of social relationship networks in communities, and although not usually the formally identified leaders of the society, they tend to be behavioural models which other members of the community tend to emulate. The role of such individuals as models is significant since they also appear to be the earliest adoptors of new ideas or habits and thus become the route through which new information enters the co,unity. m C~ G BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

Ii The rationale of Project Whisper is straightforward - influence an opinion leader with your product communication and you are at the same time achieving dissemination of that communication throughout his sociometric network. An additional aspect of this type of communication is that it characteristically takes place in locations where a high degree of opinion transfer and modellLng behaviour is observed. This is seen in the British public house or night club, and has equivalent phenomena in all societies, for example, in the Middle East the coffee house normally fulfils this role. Project Whisper can be summarised ~hen as research into defining social opinion leaders, the situations in which their activities are mcst potent, and means of influencing these opinion influencers with appropriate product information or usage habit. Researches of this type might be considered appropriate in some of the B.A.T territories which are now to some degree quite literally social laboratories within which we can consider the effects of media restriction at various stages of evolution (the U.K. and Finland are good examples). This concludes our review of some of the research activity in progress at GR&DC. The intention has not been to provide an exhaustive perspective, but to outline the case for treating product communication in restricted circumstances as a complex and systemic problem. As such, it would benefit from the combined attentions of our Marketing/Advertlsing and Psychology professionals. q ~c C~ C c~D BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

REFERENCES i. B.A.T REPORT NO. RD.1617-R, 27.9.78. 2. B.A.T REPORT NO. RD.1752-C, 18.7.80. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999 m O P,O CT~ r~ G m

- ---.- ............. ; . ~ "~ ...... !~ -7,-.-. °. • • ~r - O P~ CT~ O P,O O BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

W --I 0 0 ¢3 C 3 ¢D r~ 0 r- igl mm II -1- m Q. I,O I,D I,-'ND,',O?(31

SYNDICATE EXERCISE MARKETING .~N INNOVATIVE PRODUCT IN A MARKET WHERE CONSUMER ATTITUDES ARE COM2LEX AND COMMLrNICATIONS ARE RESTRICTED ~'hrough the course of this seminar you have been exposed to discussions of: a) b) c) d) Smoking and health a=ti=udes, their origin, development and consequences for product choice and quitting behavlour. Social pressures on smokers, their direction, strength and consequences for switching and quitting. The no=ion of smoking as a perceived social nuisance, and a possible product-innovative response to such pressures in the form of sidestream reduced cigarettes. %i~e legislative and practical feature of the development of a communication ban situation in a tobacco market case study. The aim of this syndicate exercise is to encourage you to bring together these various strands of thinking and use them in a hypothetical marketing problem situation. There are no right or wrong answers to the problems being set; you may take as long or as li=tle time as you feel necessary for the satisfactory conclusion of your team effort. Each syndicate will be required to present (either as a panel or through a spokesperson) their responses as a 20 minute presentation. THE PROBLEM You are the marketing team of a B.A.T company operating in a market ¢haracterlsed in the following way: O C) BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

- 2 - a) b) c) A smoking and health climate similar to that currently prevailing in the U.K. A social pressure climate similar to that currently prevailing in the U.K. A communication ban legislative climate similar to that detailed in =he case study, but one year down the road from the prime ban introduction of Is= March 1978. You may refer back =o de=ailed aspec=s of these market characteristics in your support documents. Your Marketing Director has requested that you consider the following points and report on each: !. 2, Develop a detailed proposal for researching 'important' consumer attitudes and behaviour in the post-ban scenario and consider ways of relating =he findings of this research =o the pro-ban situation. NOTE: You should deuermine which aspects are 'impor=aut'. In doing so, you should consider the changed marketing communications situation and how the Company might overcome the resultant problems arising from it. Your product developers have provided the ECUSTA and SCHWEITZER sides=ream attenuated cigarettes. Please prepare a research plan in order to evaluate potential consumer attitudes to the two alternative products and concepts. Your plan should cover the following aspects:- sensory testing (internal and consumer) of the two products. research methodology. key issues to be included in the research. . Finally, develop a marketing strategy for both the ECUSTA and SCHWEITZER products detailing: a) Public Relations/Public Affairs strategy, particularly to media and Government. b) Communications strategy, including copy line and allowed ma~erla!s. 0 !"0 ",..0 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

-3- c) d) e) f) Product/brand imagery. Pricing policy. Who are the =arge= smokers. Brief summ~ of pos= launch mo=i=orlng research. OlD CY~ CZ~ BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

MDP 49 - SYNDICATE EXERCISE PART II: TRANSFERRING CIGARETTE DESIGN PRACTICE TO THE MARKETPLACE You have sow been responsible, in the first part of this syndicate exercise, for designing your own smoking products. The objective of this second part of the syndicate exercise is to help you consider some of the issues involved in getting the result of your efforts into the marketplace. Through =he course of today you have been exposed to discussions of: (a) (b) (c) Smoking and health attitudes, their origlnacion, development, and consequences for product choice and quitting behaviour. The idea of smoking as a perceived social nuisance; social pressures on the smoker, their direction, strength and consequences for switching and quitting. The legisla:ive and practical features of communication ban situations, and researches designed So improve communication efficiency, The aim of this exercise is to encourage you to bring together these various strands of thinking and use them in a hypothetical marketing situation. There are no right or wrong answers so =he problem being set, you may take as long or as little time as you feel necessary for the sails- factory conclusion of your team effort. Each syndicate will be required to present (either as a panel or through a spokesperson) their responses to the whole syndicate exercise in a 20 minute presentation. It should be clearly understood that this exercise draws a great deal more on common sense than it does on marketing experience. In that respect we will not be looking for polished marketing style presentations, but for sound, well thought out strategies expressed in plain, clearly detailed terms. 0 --.0 0 r-,o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

-2- TEE ~RKET You are the marketing team of a B.A.T company operaclng in a market characterised in the followlag way: (a) A smoking and health climate similar to that currently prevailing in the U.K. (b) A social pressure climate similar to that currently prevailing in the U.K. (c) A cummunlcatlon bau legislative climate similar to that currently existing in Finland. You may refer Back to detailed aspects of these market characteristics in your support documents. THE PRODUCT Now, you have designed a cigarette (specify) for your market and in addition you are to assume that you have been able to apply a sidestream reduction paper which does not affect the cigarette mainstream delivery specifications but does reduce sldestream amount by 50%. THE PROBLEM Your Marketing Director has requested that you consider the following points and report on each: Im 2. Please detail the research approaches you will apply to evaluate potential consumer attitude to the new produc~ (remembering to take into account smoking and health and social pressure issues). Give a detailed outline of the sensory testing (in-house and field) which you would consider necessary, pre-launch, for this cigarette. Cr~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

-3- 3. Develop a marketlng strategy plan for this pro~uc~ detailing: (a) Public Rela~ious/Public A~fairs s~rategy, particularly to media and Government. (b) Communications strategy, including copy line aud allowed materials. (c) Produce/brand imagery. (d) Pricin8 policy. RPF/W~L/15.8.83 C~ BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

W -I 0 O C3 C 3 ~3 O I- ra 00 ~D mw C3 ~D (4 iw 3~ rD g) n C3 g~ "I r~ g~ ~D g) tD ~D tD ' .'a " .'| i',.. - ,,I .'. • c., j ''o" . :4 i° °' m ..! !!' i , t i a i, I II .I i ,i i I !, I 'I i

666~ ~elN 6£ epeueo q~,leaH " sao!~eS le6a'! Jo)),ueLunoop oO±VB ~ .... ::;-~._,....:::~ ,. .. o3;...~.-". :.~.. ~..'..,, ,~ .,..-~., -. . ~. . . . . . . . - . . . : .-... ".. •. ".. ~ "., " . . :..,. ~.;, • ". - r " - .,; -: .. • .~;.. ~ ~ ..Tt. ,~ .~ • ... ~:.~ .... ".::.~'::.':".~"-~..'.,S.:. ~: "~" ~, :..~ ":. ~ ; : • "~ . : ,..'. , ,~ : . ~'. , " .'-.. ~'; -. ~:-;'. . "."~:~;.~':: :-~.h ~,-~,.: ~ "T.'_.':.!'.. . . : " ~ "" - . ~ :.- ,. - . ~ " ,-.. ,-~ ~'- ~ - . . , %" " '" " : " ~. z~.~.~-~e~. ~.;..~.~ .'-~ re.'.., -~.~'-,. .-~..-" ': ;;~. ". • -. ~ :, . .-.--,'* - " - • .- ---., -- - • " ,..- " ~ ._" ° .. . -," .. -" ~., .- , .. . - ..".'"~. :'....', • ..~....~. ~:. ,: - ,, . . .... . . . o . ..... . . --+ _ "., ..: : . . .. . ..-. . ... • ;.. . . • .o .. o'~. o . ¸, i : :,i,. "." .,-":,:. .: • . .'o . .'.....,.', ~,; .,. ..... ~... ~: .... • • ,.;, ". 2"~ . ":':'-" , . • -.. -,~. . • ~ . • • o. " • o - . ° " " " . ,::, ~e~

f ° . PROJECT BROMLEY U.K. QUALITATIVE STAGE 491SCUSSION OF M_AIN FINDINGS ¢ 4. R.P. FERRIS. CD Cr-. O BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

r PROJECT BROM/~EY: UK QUALITATIVE STAGE DISCUSSION OF .MAIN FINDINGS INTRODUCTION Project Bromley'is a coilaborative exercise undertaken by -.. GR&DC (Southampto~and Marketing Department £Mii!ban~ in response to an ~DC'directive. The stated project objectives are : - (a) The development ofa-reliable, straightfo~#ard and validated method of internally assessing low delivery products on an absolute basis, by reference to appropriate standards or norms. (b) The reconciliation of internal expert assessment dimensions with external consumer dimensions. In broad terms therefore the" aim is to complement the relative, cohort based approach to low delivery evaluation exemplified by DELTA (i) with a method in which cigarettes are described not so much by the way they are compared and contrasted to contemporary products, but by some form of rating against absolute standards. The advantage conferred by such an approach would be in allowing the evaluation of discrete products without requiring __ ___l____ C7", 0 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

- 2 - contextual evaluations (comparisons to a group of clgarettes of similar market extraction), a particularly useful approach for territories developing low delivery products for a market with no established low delivery segment. The related aim is an attempt to constrict the "translatability gap" currently existing between in-house "expert" terminology and the typ. e of dimensions found by consumers to be relevant in their appreciation of low delivery products. It would be naive at this stage to assume that a constriction of this gap would directly bring eMpert panel evaluations any closer to predicting cons~ner acceptance of products in the marketplace, since shared vocabulary sets are no guarantee of shared ~phasis or importance weightings in tqn~ use of such sets. However, any move toward a more universal sensory evaluation language is of considerable value both in improving in-house comprehension of consumer requirements and in offering the prerequisite of a common baseline onto which weighting models may be imposed to i exl21ain differences in usage of the same terms across consumer and expert groups. • It has been anticipated that achievement of these objectives will require:- I II III Territorially based qualitative stages. Quantitative validation studies of these ~ualitgtive stages. Development of a detailed assessment method and associated statistical framework based on the foregoing stages. BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999 CT~ C~

- 3 - This report discusses the main outcome of the first, UK ~based, qualitative study. Subsequent qualitative stages will be modelled having regard to lessons derived from this exercise. The overall project objectives already outlined should not be confused with the interim objectives set for each stage of the project, in this document we are concerned only with J the objectives of this first qualitative stage, and these are to discover:- (a) whether smokers can differentiate between different low delivery virginia products and, if so, to what extent; (b) what type of variance can smokers identify; (c) what common understanding exists across consumers in terms of language used; "(d) what dimensions and degrees of discrimination exist amongst internal experts and how do these relate to consumer discrimination. ¢ UK QUALITATIVE STAGE The research took place during July 1980, being undertaken by an intermediary, (Cooper Research and Marketing) and observed by GR&DC and Marketing. O ~O O~ CD BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

- 4 - The exercise involved four groups of smokers, each group comprising an average six individuals. These were mid~!e tar smoking consumers, low tar smoking consumers, Millbank Leaf experts and GR&DC experts from Product Development, and WOODROSE and DELTA panels. Each group convened for three group discussions at fort- nightly intervals during which intensive discussion of the low ;" tar smoking experience was elicited with the use of appropriate samples. In the interim periods each individual smoked a selection of low delivery products at home (see Appendix i), recording his/her experiences of them on a questionnaire. Copies of these interim questionnaires (which were developed / from the group discussions) are appended (Appendices 2 and 3). The detailed findings of the exercise are separately reported (2). This report will be restricted to a discussion of the broader implications of these findings. I. VOCABULARY CORRESPONDENCE It is clear that there" is a high degree of correspondence betweeh 'expert' and consumer vocabulary sets, and the questionnaire appearing as Appendix 3 should be understood to be a statement of vocabulary jointly shared by these groups and requiring further refining in a validation study. The strlklng aspect of this final stage (combined) questionnaire is the degree to which it reiterates and supports contemporary panel development activities within the industry. Ten of the eighteen main evaluative constructs appearing on this questionnaire directly correspond with current DELTA BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999 C P~ C~ ~C C -~.

- 5 - panel constructs, a degree of commonality which echoes the equally strong association recently found between the 'expert' GR&DC DELTA panel vocabulary set and that of the newly formed consumer DELTA panel" (Table i). .°" TABLE 1 CUP.RENT DELTA PANEL VOCABULARIES COMH?ARED GR&DC IN-HOUSE CHARTER RESEARCH CONSUMER CONSTRUCT VOCABUT_J~RY / CONSTRUCT VOC~_BULARY DRAW EFFORT MOUTHFEEL NOSEFEEL THROATFEEL IMPACT TAS TE AROMA ACCEPTAB ILITY % DRAW EFFORT SMOKE TEXTURE (FORMERLY COOLNESS) MOUTH BURN THROAT BUP~N THROAT CATCH/HIT TASTE SMELL AFTERTASTE ACCEPTAB ILITY -°;. This lends further support to a three c~ponent view of cigarette evaluation based on classification of the overall experience into: CD ~o C~ ~O c~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

- 6 - a) MEC~ICS those aspects of the cigarette's performance during normal puff-taking usually referred to in terms of amount of effort to draw smoke from the cigarette (draw effort/ease) and amount or quality of smoke ,resulting from such a draw (mouthfull, smoke texture). Bromley results re-assert the relative primacy of mechanics evaluation in the low delivery context, and both 'experts' and consumers reiterate the inverse relationship between draw effort and smoke volume. / b) IRRITATION those aspects of the free smoked cigarette which confer non-taste related 'feel' to mouth, nose and throat areas usually referred to in terms of temperature hotness, tingling, prickle etc. A special case in this class is impact (or, to consumers, catch, hit or rush) which represents a transient and concentrated irritation which is specifically inhalation related. c) HEDONiCS those aspects of the smoking 9 experience relating tO taste, aroma, aftertaste (more relevant to consumers) and the integrating perception of acceptability. Hedonic components of any vocabulary set are readily identifiable because of their compound nature. Any truly hedonic construct, unlike C D~5 C~ ~C BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999

- 7 - mechanics or irritations, can be used evaluatively in three ways: i) Quantitatively, e.g. More taste ~- _~ Less taste ii) Qualitatively, e.g. Pleasant taste,= iii) As sub-components, e.g. • ° Unpleasant taste Adjectival taste descriptors which normally require separate evaluation in a non-scaling format (as in Appendix 3). • . f 2. VOCABULARY SPAN The correspondences between vocabularies of consumers and 'experts' and middle tar and low tar smokers, fortunately outweigh any dissimilarities. This is not to say that such groups do not have different vocabula~i spans. 'Vocabulary span' refers to the number and type of evaluative constructs perceived to be available in describing the cigarette. Paradoxically, 'experts' andomiddle tar smokers employ smaller vocabulary spans than c0nsumers and low tar smokers. The shorter 'expert' span is a direct reflection of the extent to which in-house evaluations are self disciplined or panel traiHed-to use fewer, more definitive, or independently descriptive variables in evaluating the product (note that this does not hold in the special case of taste sub'component descriptor~ where experts Send to apply a vocabulary span slightly wider than that of the consumer). C~ C BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

- 8 - The broader vocabulary span of the consumer is achieved solely by virtue of his taking a wider stLmulus context into account when evaluating the product. This wider context appears to comprise two factors: a) b) MOOD-STATE VALUES whereas the expert generally moves from his appreciation of the sensory components of the product to a view of its acceptability, the consumer usually moves from an immediate implicit accep£ability judge- ment to specific senso~I determinations. As a result, the implicit style of acceptability judgement made by tq~e consumer is more susceptible to variations in his mood or arousal state. This translates through into a class of pseudo' descriptors characterist'ic of consumer evaluation where the product is described in terms of its capacity to confer particular psychological states, e.g. satisfaction, relaxation, concentration. Such descriptors cannot be adequately controlled in a panel testing "context. PERIPHERAL ELEMENTS Consumer groups readily include elements of the smoking experience into the evaluative context which 'experts' do not, unpromptedly, report. These elements are predominantly tactile/visual and include cigarette rod/filter firmness, packing stability, end stain appearance, perceived size, ash properties, burn cD Co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

- 9 - characteristics, etc. It is important to caution that volunteering or failing to volunteer such terms to his vocabulary span is not necessarily a direct indication of whether or not these perceptions will affect the individual's overall perception of the product at either a conscious or unconscious levei. In ei£her case, t.he role of these 'peripherals' should properly be regarded as subjects of parallel research projects currently being undertaken, particularly with re~ard to the fact that such elements lend themselves to objective measurement / techniques. The reason for the limited vocabulary span of middle tar smokers hinges on a related vocabulary principle: 3. VOCABULARY SALIENCE A~y vocabulary spans, irrespective of the degree of correspondence between them (.and we have noted that for Bromley, 'expert' and consumer vocabularies are highly correspondent) tend to be used with a different set of saliences or importance weightings attached to the descriptors within them. The p~rticular profile of these saliences or weightings will differ depending on the type of cigarettes being evaluated using that span, and in particular the type of smoker using the span. Project Bromley has provided evidence t'hat the same or equivalent vocabulary terms incorporated in the vocabulary spans BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999 G

- I0 - of different smoker groups receive quite different importance weightings or perceived saliences. Impact, for example, is highly salient in the middle tar smcker's evaluation of his produc~ (so salient, in fact, that in turn the middle tar vocabulary span does not require to be particularly broad in order to portray the smoking experience as the middle tar smoker sees it). In contrast, impact is dramatically less salient to the low delivery smoker for whom mechanics tend to receive most importance weighting. .- ..... A~more obvious-point is that what is seen as salient is strongly influenced by product type, therefore, it is not surpris~-ng to note that mechanics are highly salient in low / delivery evaluation since they are prominent and variable within such products, whereas they have low salience in middle tar evaluation since they are stableand tend to vary less. .......... Salience should therefore be understood to manifest in - two ways: . i) As related to smoker type and appearing as personal importance weightings applied to the terms available in the vocabulary span, and ii) As related to product type and appea{ing as shifts in importance weightlngs within vocabulary span across product type. THE "BALANCE" CONCEPT It is clear from the foregoing that the good news from Bromley so far is the potential degree of correspondence between m C C C C BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

- II - 'expert' and consumer vocabularies. The 'bad' news is that even if the vocabula_~y spans of both groups are aligned, the terms available are used with different hierachy of importance weightings by these groups. So, the terms may superficially be the same, but perception of their relative significances differ between 'experts' and consumers. t This points to a requirement for a weighting model or transformation equation of some type, whic~h when applied to ° 'expert' and consumer evaluations aligned by product and assessment vocabulary will yield a means of accounting for t.he differences in evaluation reported by these groups. In this connection, the emergence from Bromley of a fourth major construct category is noteworthy and represented best by the term 'balance'. Balance at this stage has an unrefined definition in the eye of the consumer as being indicative of an accePtable product. l However, the 'expert' definitions raise the term to the status of a potential integrator variable. "If we can conceive of the parameters on which a cigarette is judged as being scales terminated by extreme opposite poles (e.g. maximum impact~ ,no impact) then within each sca~e any evaluator will develop a subjective 'bandwidth of tolerance' outside of .which a sampled cigarette should not stray if it °. is tO be perceived as 'balanced'. The attraction of such a balance model is that it goes some way to explain the nature of salience" and its contribution to the probl~m of perceived product acceptability. In this example, salience or weighting is expressed in the different I BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

- 12 - tolerance ~-ndw_d~h_~ ~ ~ smokers micht, apply to a set of evaluative parameters in terms of relative breadth or narrowness. Additionally, the point on each scale at which the bandwidth is positicned is important. Thus, for example, we might compare the balance models for low tar ~nd middle .tar smokers over a (deliberately restricted) common evaluative vocabulary: i LOW TAR SMCKERS MAX. I.~ACT NO IMPACT MAX. DRAW EFFORT i ,= °. • NO )RAW EFFORT .w~X. TASTE / J .. t b NO TASTE MIDDLE TAR SMOKERS MAX. IMPACT MAX.TASTE MAX DRAW EF F( ) RT s • : . . • & NO DRAW EFFORT NO IMPACT NO TASTE NOTE : arrows. Tolerance bandwidths are indicated by the inward-pointing CD ~o cr~ o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

- 13 - Here we note that bandwidth tolerances differ within and across vocabularies and positioning of these bandwidths within the scales on which they appear is similarly variable: This complex situation may be made more so by the existence of superordinate balancing relations existing at the level of relationships between clusters of such parameters (e.g. mechanics, irritations and hedonics). Salience contributes to both evaluative differences between 'experts' and consumers, and perception of product acceptability expressed as 'balance' It is likely to be difficult to measure, though trade-off or conjoint statistics may provide the necessary attribute weighting style of approach. SUMMARY ~D RECO~NDATIONS The UK qualitative stage of Project Bromley yields the following: i) Relatively high correspondence between 'expert' and consumer evaluative-vocabularies in line with parallel studies being undertaken elsewhere. 2) Reiteration of a three component view of the smoking experience based on a mechanics, i~ritations, hedonics typology. 3) Evidence of differences in vocabulary span between considers and "experts' such that consumers tend to include mood-state values and visual/tactile elements of thesmoking experience into their evaluations. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999 C~ O

666 /ielA! epeueo q;leaH • sao!Juas le6a-I Joj ),uaLunoop ooiYB 0 O', C',J 0 .. . . .° ° • ..--..-.: ..,!- . " . ." ..... .: - :. .. : ..;..;" ° ; .~ °..- .4 .° . • :. t2 "j".. . : ,: ".:'::, .; , " :: .... "- " " "*- " °" "' ' ° " " • " *" L • ' ---- --:" -- 2 °." .... A • . __ -. .... • ... : .. ............ ..... _ - .... . "S~Se%S" N~lu~oxK Wu~nb~sqns aoI uoI~.~xTp • .. . : - t~u ~ue~=odu_~. ue squas~xda) .~ou-~i~q, ~ uo~weslu~=o aI~q-4 • "_: . o'- ... . • "L ~ . • 'A:" pure ,S6U~q6~a 8ou~xodur~ Io 8outfits ;o sWd~ouoo ~q~ '=~A~aoq .. . . • . .: - . #; .... . . .- . o- .... UIpie~O~ 5uIAoar ~agq s~q Ku~du~o~ gq:~ :~q~ q~nu/ xoI gDu-ap~A~ . ,- • . • . - . ~A'~ss~xdu~ ~p~Aoxd 0~ u~q s~q" ~g~s ~sxll sTq~ Io 8ni~ ~q.T. • "-" :.- .: ." . - --. [ " """ "2 .... ': - ! J • .. - . u-a~T5 Xu~ o~uo s=exou~ Xq pesod£I ~eidurag (~ "pa~enI~A~ 5bT~q 8~ex~6~o ;o 8dX% ~q-4 =o/pu-a "ur~q~ SUTSn ~ures ~q~ o~ paq~ sSuT~qBTB~ o~u~i=od~x =o | ,-

REFERENCES le Subjective assessment of cigarettes with particular reference to low delivery products. BAT GR&DC REPORT NO.RD.1667 RESTRICTED. o Research report: Qualitative research on Project Bromley. COOPER RESEARCH AND MARKETING. PROJECT BSI5/JF. a J .o CD ~O O~ O BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

APPENDIX 1 PROJECT BROM/~EY CIC~.RETTE COHORT Code ° LOW TAR SMOKERS ( M611 ( ( .( ( MI41 ( ( ( ( M143 ( ( ALL SMOKERS ( M5 ii ( ( ( ( M515 ( ( ( ( ( M183 ( ( (KV38 ( ( ( FH42 ( ~DLE TAR( SMOKERS ( ( M516 ( ( ( ( Tar Nicotine (rag) (rag) 1.4 0.47 4.0 0.43 8.6 "0.75 5.8 0.68 5.6 O.7O 5.7 0.72 8.O 0.81 9.0 0.91 9.6 1.14 - Features High nicotine, all lamina blend; 25mm .~A; Benkert mech. perf. tipping (I row). GORI blend; 20mm CA; high permeability cigarette paper; Interbobbin mech. perf. tipping (I row). GORI blend; 2Ontm CA; high permeability cigarette paper; Interbobbin mech. perf. tipping (2 rows). B. & H. Luxury Mild blend; 2Omm CA; ~igh permeability cigarette paper; Benkert mech. perf. tipping (2 rows). B. & H. Luxury Mild blend; 20mm h~A; high permeability cigarette paper; Malauc~ne laser micro perf. tipping (8 rows). State Express blend; 2Omm CA; medium permeability cigarette paper; Benkert mech. perf. tipping (3 rows). U~K. & E. exptl, blend; 2Omm paper/CA dual; perf. tipping (2 rows). U.K. & E. exptl, blend (same as KV38); 2Omm paper/CA dual; high permeability cigarette paper; U_~perf. tipping. B. & H. Luxury Mild blend; 2Omm NWA; high permeability cigarette paper; Malauc~ne laser micro perf. tapping (4 rows); Identical to M515 except tipping. O~ m-. BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

APPENDIX 2 f PRELIMINARY QUESTIO~NAIRE FORMAT • o BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999 C~ G

- I - NAME" ° • CIGARETTE SA~.PLE NUMBER SMOKING ORDER NUMBER ° DAY Ti ME - . . o .•.. . . . Please mark where your own brand would belong on the line and then mark where the Ideal ~nd then the testclgarette belongs: • . .~-':':-.. :-: -_': . .... . - "- --;."::: :-:. % .. ." : --" .... " ~ . - io • . , , o .~. _ . .~ :.~--:~:;~ -. ..... .. . . , . - 1 Is a:-':." . ..... .: • " Is.an familiar : " ; - I t unfamiliar • smoke -=- - | l SmOke - "-'- " --i" ". " .. " " • " 2.Easy to ra, i I H rd to draw | I 3 Thick smoke "' Thln s~oke • mouth " " J . J mouth d "'i " • - - . ". . . - . - . . 4 Burns down : -: ~ 1 Burns down i . . . ~ . . . qulckl.¥ by ... • - ITself .,.. itself'; .. " . . I slowly by -5 Frustrat Ion " .... " . Satisfaction at f Irs-t i " "": :" " " " I l , at f I rst .. puff .'. " .... | l. | .. "" 6 Taste grows i " ' : I " 1 " " " " I " ' " ' " I " Taste does" not 1 ]" gro, . . .. . --" : ....." .... :_.::_." ..: : .- .., :. --:; .. : . ..- . . • . , , "-. • . . _ - • . . ... 7 Bitter taste ..I( I Sweet taste :. - ,... ,, . ... • . • • .i . 8 Very acld I Not at all acld 9 "Tongue '" "" .. • -. " " No effect on ~ l n g I e S / 1 I , lJiL~" . - tongue . . . -. .. .. " .:"i . prickles . ".". -. • : .... " "- -- "" .~ .-.:.. ..... • ..... . - = ".'.:.'... : .- . • " • .'.:: -.'...'" "- " - '='- " " ....... " "..Z'-." " " ' "- ~ :.:'L. " ...." :r .... .-. •• " •" " " :- - "" "" • - : " - Cool'In ¢he .I0 Hot In the .", • ; mouth .--. ".'.-..-: .... | ] mouth " "-- • .!.;'-. ". • .. - .- /"--::..:~'... '"'::." . ;:'-" "'"'." -" • " '" -" • "~'" " " -""'" -'':. ." "' " " " " "- .."II. ~heR°u'g'hthroa-- °n ""':~"I""-I " ' ;";:'";- ~"-:':~'~:":':"~'':'~'::" ~:';"'/ "-"" "' " "i'~ Smooth on 'the """ T throat..~. 7:. i -_ . . . 12 Hits or'-"" - _ .-- . -. ~ . '" .No hlt or catch .... catches on ' - .... " ..--" ..--'" : -- . ; .. on the back of.. - "' " the back of .... ' ; " : :,:"":' : "'" " " " " I " :"" '" " " I the throat-for. the th .roar • "I J e quick IomentK. "- "- e . for e quick . :"'- .._- '.'. -" ..'. .. when Inhaled . • . moment when • . / -. " " ...- . . ".. -, ..*. . g .... ~ .:. :;..." . "= . ~ ~'.. " - Inhaled :- " ". " "- ....-~" " : -.. '-.- -" :...:.. . -'.-." ..:: "-:" ".. : :--/":-'. ": ": ...... .': ";k-'." " 1:3 Has a fresh " " Has a stale . -teste "" " - :" I I taste" , .I.l " ' " :14 A dr'"y ~""":" ": " ;': " ": " " ;" ": ":;:'" :2::'"" -. :"::":'":''" " ;-":" "-"" ;"" " ..... '':':'"" " " "~ 1 . i:.... i " :- "| :::" "'='"" "" "~"':" " " """ : ' " : I Not a dry : :. " "" tasting . i ... . ... I test Ing . ctgarette " cigarette .. .. 15 Cigarette -~l " " " ] Cigarette .. dried the . '.~. . dld not dry mouth - . " the mouth • • o . . - : -- .: . -. : . . - 16 A lot I " I Very llttle • - : of •taste '•, t taste .- ;. " : '. -" " *' ... -.. . . • " . ? . -"l" Strong" tas i " : " " .... " " • te'l: • " • " 17 • I MIId taste . 18 Balanced" :i:.-...:.I - ." .""'-:.' " "'" Not balanced : ...... .:'."" ". -.• I." . I .." 19 Leaves an "-'-'::" "'l "-: ; -" '; ~~"-';~"= ' "' " """ " ":'" .... ""."'j"'- "" -~ .: ~ :--;. -. -" - ~ Does not leave aftertaste - i an aftertaste .. ," . ...,. ='. ..'.':. : .' p. ".. ..... • .. .. • . . ... "L'--:':" . . .. .... "^ " :.::. : "-- . 20 Leaves a '. ' " ...... " -'" "" Does not leave coating In'. I I " • coating In i: l:::l ;: : :';' ': • :: ' "'....;.- "-"" ":.: the mouth • - . ..... • • .. "-'" : .- • . ..; .. , • .. c C CC BATCo document for Legal Sewices : Health Canada 19 May 1999

2 CIP, ARETTE SAMPLE NUNBER 4 2i Has lot of tobacco teste 22 Has-a synthetic/ artificial } testa 23 Has a fresh taste 1 24 Satisfying cigarette I 25 Relaxlag to smoke } 26 Stimulating to smoke -, ~7 Smoke ~kes ~e feel tranquil 28 A cigarette that | ~ould feel 1 confident to offer to other smokgr3 29 Filter stain Is concentrated ] in one place 30 Filter Is dark ] coloured 31 Filter traps the taste I .~2 Fl Iter Is Iast i.cy - i 33 FI Iter Is efficient 1 24 Tobacco firmly } backed ]5 Gives off a lot el smoke when ..1 smou I der ins ~~. ~6 Has solid ash 1 ~7 Seems sine 1 I or than normal King Size without =easurlng 38 A cigarette I could sa~oke regularly ° °. .•. .° . .t . , . , . ~: °, • •t . o ! Does not ha ve a lot of tobacco taste Ooes not have a synthetic/ artlflcla! test. Has a sCale | taste Dlsappolntlng I cigarette Not relaxing I to smoke Not stl~ulattng [- to smoka Smoke does not make =e feel tranquil A cigarette that I ~ould feel embarrassed to offer to other smokers .: ." *+ ,, . [ Filter stala Is evenly distributed Filter Is light coIoured 1 Filter lets the taste through Fllter Is not ~" plastlcy Filter Is not efficient Tobacco loosely pa c ked Gives off very little smoke vhen smouldering Has loose { ash Seems larger than normal King SIze wltkout eoasurlng A cigarette I co~ Id not smoke regularly 0 C~ 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

°, CIG.~RETTE SAMPLE NUMBER - 3- Here. are a number of features which may or m~y not apply to the clgeratte you have Just smoked. Where you Chlnk tho term applies, would you please tlck under Approprlate. If any seem particularly wrong, would you please tlck under Inappropriate, Any ~hot are neither .rlght nor wrong, just leave. : APP RO- I NAPP- APP RO- ! N APP- " PRIATE ROPRIATE PRIATE ROPRIATE I PERFUMED .SPICY/PEPPERY ~INTY/PEPPERMINTY MUSTY ~OODY METALLIC GRASSY REEN MALTY• BALANCED NUTTY COOL : ( ) C ) ( ) . ( ) C ) ( ) .( ) ( ) . ( ) [ ) "1 ( ) ( ) C. ) COTTON WOOLLY C ) ( ) OFFENSIVE C ) { ) " •GASSY ( ) (). ANAEMIC " ( ) [ ) DIRTY ( ) ( ) .OFF ( ) [ ) ACIOY ( ) ( ) PAPERY FLAYOUR ( ) C ) - C ) f DISAPPOINTING { ) AROMATIC [ ) MELLOW C ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - ( )"~" {'1 ! ) l ) I ! (.) SMOOTH ( ) ~ " . • • . . . . , .• •- . .° . • • .. . " . • ".. ., ,!.':. :. ., . . ".. . PLEASE WILL YOU BRING THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES TO THE NEXT MEETING, . , . - . . o" . .... ,. " . • " .• . ," . . . . o, . . .o ....... • . .... ." • • -" . o .. ; .... o . • •'o • - • ,. ,, I . i . "- •.- . .. .'.-* . •o • , o °•. ~. ~ ° • ~ ° . --: .; °.= •• .o , . ,- r . • . = ° • • .: ° . ,•*... - • • o• . m ~J C~ G LJ~ 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

APPENDIX 3 f °o. FINAL STAGE QUESTIONNAIP~E FORMAT m 0 r',o 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

o - 1 - CIGARETTE SAMPLE NUHBER NAHE For the first cigarette smoked from each $amplep pleese describe It In any way you like as fully as you can. You can Include terms from ~he questionnaire plus any others that you feel are appropriate. f • . . .° • -° o • • : . o. • ° C~ ~C b~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

C.,~F:.:~TTE SA~OLE NU~.8ER - Z ° Please tlck the approprlete box. Zetisfying at Is? puf# Not satlsfy'ng at Is? puff Easy to draw Thick smoke texture In the mouth [] [] [] [::] [-I ~ i-1 Hard to draw Thin smoke texture In the mouth Hardly any taste [] D .D [] ~ I-1 ~ .as , ~ot or taste Tongue 91ngles/prl ckles Io effect In the mouth ! Has a momentary imp~c*- -on the ~hro~t when Inhaled- L~aves ?ha throat feel Ing rough ~'~~~~ ~ ~ j~_~ ~ [] 1~ ~ 1-1 ~ ~ ~ 1~ I--'t Ha effecl" on the tongue Creates a sensation In The mouth H~s ~o ;mp2~ - cn the thm~t" when inhaled • ! DOeS not leave The throat feeling rough Heats the mouth Does not have a stale/mus~ty taste Tlckl Ing/prlckl Ing feeling when smoke Is blown out ?hrouqh nose Dries the mouth 4as a pleasant ,tter taste Gives off a lot of smoke ~hen smouldering A cigarette I could offer to othe~ people The taste.builds up ~hllo smoking the cigarette 1-11-11-11:31-11:31-I E3 ~ E3 E3 l-q ~3 ~q ., 1:31-11-11:31-11-11:3 [] [] % 1:31-11-11-11-11:31-I -~.. ODes not heat the mouth Has a stale/musty taste Does not have a tickling/prickling feel lng ~hen _~moke Is blown out through nose Does not dry the mouth Has an unpleasant after taste Does not give off a lot of smoke when saou I der I n9 ^ cigarette I could not offer to other people The taste does not build up vhlle smokla9 the cigarette Looking at the end of the filter. The filter looks as If It has worked well .... The filler does not :; look as If It has worked veil Taking the total smoking qualities Into consideration | s e be lanced r3 rq rq ~q r-I ~ l-q " Is an unbalanced clg=rette C~ C~ ,'. J-1 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 19 May 1999

CIGARETTE SAKPtE NUHSER ~h|ch of the followIng Terms describes the cigarette that you have Just s=oked? (Pleese tick once for a term whlch Is appropriate, t~Ice for partlcularl~ approprt, ate but lears blank If a term Is Inappropriate). Coats the mouth Dlfficult to l|ght Dlff|cuJt to keep alight Noa ~ohecco ~asta Cotton voolly Papery flavour HlnCy/peppermlnty Aromatlc Bitter Acrid " [ ) Perfumed ( ) Dry ( ) ( } Spicy ( ) Astrlngan¢ -( ) ( ) Peppery ( ) Gassy { ) ( ) -'~4"alt¥ { ) Hetslllc ( ) ( ) Earthy ( ) Off ( ) ( ) ~oody { ) Cool ( ~ ( } Grassy/green ( ) Artlflcl~! ( ) ( ) ~ellow ( ) Dirty ( ) ( ) Sveet ( ) Acid ( ) ( ) Smooth ( } . O C~ BATCo document for Legal Sewices • Health Canada 19 May 1999

--i (3 0 0 c3 E 3 0 r DI m ii m e,J ¢.D ":Y 'I I i ' i i'. : ,o, J ". '".,.i 1 ~;~0176980l I !1 I t 1 I I i i ,! ! I !

...=...= C~ C~ BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 May 1999