Jump to:

Anne Landman's Collection

Kool Isn T Getting the Starters/236.

Date: 17 Feb 1987
Length: 4 pages
621079918-621079921
Jump To Images
snapshot_bw 0011569933

Abstract

In this 1987 memo, a Brown & Williamson (BW) employee laments that KOOL cigarettes are "no longer attracting new smokers." He explains how to design a cigarette that would be more successful in attracting "starters" to "correct this problem." The author then ties the "problem" to the fact that the menthol level in KOOL cigarettes had been increased in 1985, which inadvertently made the product unappealing to starters:

"Basically, [the problem] is that KOOL's menthol level is too high for starters...Franchise [established] smokers prefer a product providing a greater menthol taste than do starters..."

The writer suggests solutions:

"...[A] more logical approach is to: 1) promote KOOL MILDS as the starter brand, ...2) Line-extend the KOOL family with a product having...lower menthol...specifically to attract new smokers..."

On Page 3, the writer explains how to make the product appealing to new smokers:

"Menthol brands have been said to be good starter products because new smokers appear to know that menthol covers up some of the tobacco taste and they already know what menthol tastes like, vis-a-vis candy."

This document shows B&W's intent to design a cigarette specifically to appeal to "starters," despite the tobacco industry's insistence that its intent is not to recruit new smokers, but simply to get established smokers to switch brands.

Fields

Quotes

This memo addresses the fact that KOOL is no longer attracting new smokers (further referred to as "starters"), a product-related reason which possibly explains this position, and suggestions to correct this problem.

Switching data (waves 32-40, attached) clearly show that KOOL KS and 100 are not attracting their fair share of starters. Newport, on the other hand, is performing above its fair share. Besides the differences in packaging and marketing between KOOL and Newport, one basic product difference exists which can possibly explain part of the reason for KOOL's disparity among starters. Basically, it is that KOOL's menthol level is too high for starters...

The dilemma is that KOOL can't satisfy the needs of both starters and current franchise. Franchise smokers prefer a product providing greater menthol taste than do starters. This paradox isn't easily corrected by just changing KOOL's menthol level, due to the significant risk of losing franchise smokers. Thus, a more logical approach is to:

l. promote KOOL MILDS as the starter brand,

2. line extend the KOOL family with a produce having...a lower menthol loading...specifically to attract new smokers, or

3. introduce a free standing product having the same product description as in (2) above.

In summary, we can't reduce the menthol level of KOOL KS/1O0 to an acceptable level for starters without risking a catastrophic loss among our franchise. Thus, to regain starters, we must establish another product source.

[From Page 3]:

From a product recipe standpoint, I can understand why possibly KOOL KS and 100s are no longer considered to be acceptable starter products. First, let's consider which smoking attributes are important to a beginning smoker. Based on my own initial smoking experiences and comments from other smokers about their early smoking experiences, the attributes are:

1. low tobacco taste (this is an acquired taste with use),

2. low impact and irritation (a strong smoke is intolerable),

3. low tobacco aftertaste (heavy, dirty taste is intolerable), and

4. if it's a menthol product, it should have a low amount.

Menthol brands have been said to be good starter products because new smokers appear to know that menthol covers up some of the tobacco taste and they already know what menthol tastes like, vis-a-vis candy. The level of menthol in the product is, however, critical. A product having a moderate to high menthol taste will usually be rejected by starters, while the same level will be quite acceptable to established menthol smokers. Indeed, this is the dilemma which KOOL KS and 100s face today.

In August 1985 we inadvertently made the situation even worse for starters by increasing the menthol level of KOOL KS and 100s...

Company
BROWN & WILLIAMBON TOBACCO CORPORATION
Author
Cantrell-D
Recipient
Macdonald-I
B&W
Region
United States
Litigation
10004026
10004026 02755
10004026 13530
Type
Memo
Correspondence
Subject
smoking initiation
cigarette additive
cigarette
cigarette ingredient
design and manufacture
target market

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: 0011569933
r' BROWN & WILLIAMBON TOBACCO CORPORATION RESEARCH, DEVELOPMEi~Fr & ENGINEERING INTERNAL CORRESYONDENCE TO: I.D. Macdonald CC: T.E. Whitehair E. E. Kohnhorst M. L. Reynolds T. F. Riehl FROM: D.V. Cantrell DATE: February 17, lgB] SUBJECT: KOOL ISN'T GETTING THE STARTERS/236 J. Hendricks J. Tharaldson R. Stowe C. N. KOLLnnas This memo addresses the fact that KOOL is no longer attracting new smokers (further referred to as "starters"), a product-related reason which possibly explains this position~ and suggestions to correct this problem. Switching data (waves 32-&0, attached) clearly show that KOOL KS and 100 are not attracting their fair share of starters. Newport~ on the other hand, is performing above its fair share. Besides the differences in packaging and marketing between KOOL and Newport~ one basic product difference exists which can possibly expialn part of the reason for KOOL's disparity ~.ong starters. Basically, it is that gOOL's menthol level is too high for starters. For a more in-depth discussion abaut this fact, see Appendix A. The dilemma is that K00L can't satisfy the needs of both starters and current franchise. Franchise smokers prefer a product providing greater menthol taste than do starters. This paradox isn't easily corrected by just changing KOOL's menthol level, due to the significant risk of losing franchise smokers. Thus, a more logical approach is to: l. promote KOOL MILDS as the starter brand, 2. line extend the KOOL family with a product having --12-14 mg tar with a lower menthol loading, eg., -0.3Z% menthol, specifically to attract new smokers, or 3. introduce a free standing new product having the same product description as in (2) above. 6ZIOTD91
Page 2: 0011569933
In s~ary, we can't reduce the menthol level of KOOL KS/IO0 to an acceptable level for starters without risking a catastrophic loss among our franchise. Thus~ to regain starters, we must establish another product source. D. V. C, DVC/vr 0509h Attachments 2 - 621079919
Page 3: 0011569933
APPENDIX A PRODUCT REASON FOE K00L'S DECLINE IN ATTRACTING STARTERS From a ?roduet recipe standpoint~ I can understand why possibly KOOL KS and 10Os are no longer considered to be acceptable starter products, First, let's consider which smoking attributes are important to a beginning smoker. Based on my o~a~ initial smoking experiences and comments from other smokers about their early smoking exgerie~ees~ the attributes are: I. low tobacco taste (this is an acquired taste with use), 2. low impact and irrita=ion (a strong smoke is intolerable), 3. low tobacco aEtertaste (heavy, dirty taste is intolerable), and 4. if it's a menthol product, it should have a low amount. Menthol brands have been said to be good star~er products because new smokers apDear to know that menthol covers up some of the tobacco caste and they already know what menthol £astes like, vis a-vis candy. The level Of menthol in the product i$, however~ critical. A product having a moderate to high menthol t~ste will usually be rejected by starters, while the same level will be quite acceptable to established menthol smokers. Indeed, this is the dilemma which KOOL KS and lO0s face today, In August 1985~ we inadvertently ~ade the situation even worse for starters by increasing the menthol level of KOOL KS and 100s~ see chart bel~. This ch~ge was adopted based ~p~ CPT res~i~s s~wing a superior preference for the current recipe (havi~g 0.40 and 0.45~ menthol for KS and iOO's, respectively). Newport~ having a lower menthol level~ O.32~, is better positioned ~or starters than is current ROOL. Table 1 ~enthol hoadin~ Year KOOL KS KOOL 100 77 ,36 .38 78 .36 79 .36 80 .36 81 .36 82 .3~ 83 .3~ 8~ .34 85 ,3~, .40 (8/85) .38, .45 (8/85) 86 ,&0 ,45 in '~Z, the ~iter plasticizer o~ KQOL KS was ~hanged to ~ne whi£h allowed a greater menthol dellvery. To maintain previous deliveries, the loading was decreased by 0,0Z~. 6Z1079920
Page 4: 0011569933
STgRTER DESZGNATZO~ BY BRAND FAHILY/STYLE ~SLIS~b~nS~LUd~da~L¢~ (32-33) Total ~mokers 28,474 Total Starters 1,05] (M/F, 21e years of age) - Total Starters 51 of Total Starters 4.85~ - TOtal Starters of Total Starters - Total Starters of TDtal Starters 26 2.47¢ 8 .76~ ~,u3Jzr~gJJ~ Total StarLeTs 46 oF Total Starters 4.38~ Total ~tarters 126 % of Tota~ Starters 11.99% (FAIR SHARE {FAIR (FAIR SHARE SHARE i LP~ i Zt~ i (34 35) (36 ~7) (38 3g) 28,206 27,I~9 26,755 1,001 933 911 37 34 41 (80) 3.70~ (63) 3.64¢ (68) 450% 16 16 15 (76) 1,60% (56) 1.72% (6B) 1.65¢ 5 6 2 (8O] .50~ (47] .6q~ (SG) ,22~ 39 36 43 (223] 3.go~ (IBg] 3.86~ (1671 4,72~ 93 86 77 (127) 9.29~ (102) 9.23~ (104) 8,45~ IFAIR SHARE (BB) (FAIR ~HARE (40) 12,&80 324 5 ] .54~ (32) 3 (68) .93% 2 (25) .62% 9 2,78% 37 (g2) 11,42% (67) (124] {123) 1Fair Strafe Index of } ioo = Growth, attract(ng more than brand's share of smokers. Fair Slla)'e Inde>C Of 100 = parity, Ilttracting equal to bFand'$ ~hare of srilOke~-s, Fair ~hare Index o? ( 100 = LOSS. attracting le$$ than brand's share oF smoker~, p~ C~ [~ 0509h

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: