Abstract
This 1983 British American Tobacco (BAT) Research and Development document shows the company grappling with the fact that cigarettes are objectionable to others, that others then complain to smokers about their smoking and pressure them to quit. This document shows BAT struggling to produce a less annoying cigarette to help them maintain the overall social acceptability of smoking, ease pressure on smokers to quit, and thus avoid further erosion of the cigarette market in Britain:
BAT recognized that "complaints [about smoking] relate more to smoke (40%) and smell (30%) than health (15%)" and that "The only solution to social pressure is to quit, albeit temporarily." According to the document, "the need for the tobacco industry to address this problem is critical to secure the total [cigarette] market against accelerating erosion."
Problems facing BAT with the proposition of a new cigarette that puts out less smoke and less odor were how to advertise these properties, since advertising that a certain brand of cigarette was a "low smoke, low smell" brand would call more attention to the fact that cigarettes--particularly "traditional" ones-- constitute a source of pollution:
"It would be unwise to suggest that conventional cigarettes are a pollution source and nor should the end benefits of reduced side stream [smoke] be pointed out."
BAT also recognized that, if they should introduce a "beneficial" low sidstream cigarette into their domestic market, "we could be open to the double-standards argument being raised by such bodies as the W.H.O.", if such products were not introduced into less developed countries as well.
Fields
- Quotes
A key consideration in the decision to progress Project Trout was the recognition that this high level of pressure on the smoking habit from third parties has no current cigarette solution. At least in the case of specific health concern the smoker has the opportunity of moving to Low Tar. The only solution to social pressure is to quit, albeit temporarily. It can, therefore, be argued that the need for the tobacco industry to address this problem is critical to secure the total market against accelerating erosion....
...These results suggest that reduced sidestream is principally seen as a means of reducing pressure from third parties through improving the social acceptability of smoking. Only a minority perceive it to be concerned with the health question and a similar proportion also relate it to some economy benefit through slower burning properties...Any market introduction would consequently need an accomp anying P.R. programme to educate target smokers about the contribution of sidestream to total ambient smoke...
Trout's role was to contribute to a reduction in third party criticism over an extended time period. Thus the benefit is both secondary (designed for non-smokers) and deferred (no immediate affect was expected).
This contrasts with the Low Tar concept where the benefit
(health) is also deferred but is nevertheless primary in that it affects the smoker directly. Despite four out of five smokers accepting that Low Tar cigarettes are 'safer' the Low Tar segment of the market is only 18%...
The U.K. smoker is increasingly defensive about his habit,
having been under attack from the media and now his friends
and family, yet he still lacks a logical argument to re-but
their criticisms, be they social or health related. He
therefore strongly resists any approach embodied in a brand
proposition which would lead him to being drawn into further
debate the smoking question. This in turn requires that
any advertising proposition in support of Trout should not
lead to a re-evaluatlon of smoking per se. In specific terms, it would be unwise to overtly suggest that conventional cigarettes are a pollution source and nor should the end benefits of reduced side stream be pointed out...
It is important to bear in mind the issue confronting B.A.T
as a whole rather than the parochial interest of any
particular associate Company. The danger is that, by
introducing reduced sidestream products only into
developed markets, we could be open to the double standards
argument being raised by such bodies as the W.H.O.
If any activity on this proposition was seen to result
through Industry co-operatlon, there are sufficient grounds
to counteract such attacks...
...The arguments in favour of applying the proposition to all
brands rely on the adoption of a "softly-softly" approach,
in which the consumer is not advised of the change until
after the event. This has the particular advantage of
protecting the Company from outside criticism, which is
likely to arise with any overt industry response to the
social acceptability question....
- Company
- British American Tobacco
- Author
- R, I.A.
- Named Person
- Trout
- X/Bat, U.K.
- X/Schweitzer
- X/Ecusta
- X/House, O.F. Dumaurier
- X/Fcb
- X/Bat
- X/World Health Organization
- Operation/Project
- Project Trout -- Low sidestream, low odor cigarette
- Type
- MRPT, MARKETING REPORT
- CHAR, CHART
- OUTL, OUTLINE
- LIST
- GRAPHIC
- REPORT
- Litigation
- 10004026
Document Images
Page 1: 0000014579
: I
PROJECT TROUT
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT
• l°
e
. -~ .p
INTRODUCTION :
Project Trout was initiated in December 1981 in response to the
technical advances GR&DC had made in conjunction with paper
suppliers towards the reduction of sidestream smoke.
A Project ~am, consisting of the U.K. Marketing Planning Manager,
U.K. Public Relations Manager, BAT(UK&E) Product Development
Manager, a representative from the Advertising Agency (FCB) and
a technical expert from GR&DC, was set up in January 1982.
The project brief was to :
i)
Assess the products developed at that time amongst
consumers through market research.
ii)
Determine the distribution of attitudes amongst U.K.
smokers to sldestream smoke.
ill)
Evaluate the opportunity for smokers to signal their concern
via the products developed.
It was decided at a relatively early stage that the project would
be exclusive to B.A.T and would be developed with the U.K. domestic
market in mind. Brand development work would concentrate on a°
single new brand development and both Low and Low-to-Middle Tar
opportunities would be explored.
Development activities on concept, product and branding together
with the P.R. implications continued through 1982.
CONTEXT :
The social acceptability question arguably is now a more important
factor than personal health concern in determining smokers' attitudes
and behaviour. This is illustrated by the following research
examples :
Non-Smokers Smokers
% %
m
I personally try to persuade
people to give up cigarette smoking.
August 1981 41
21
February 1982 40 19
..... Cont/d.
&n
Page 2: 0000014579
-2-
e
. .
CONTEXT (Cont/d.) :
Cigarette smoking is becoming less
acceptable than it used to be.
August 1981
February 1982
Fewer people are smoking these days.
1978
1981
Non-Smoke rs
%
75
80
61
74
Smoke rs
%
69
71
5O
66
Tipped Smokers
%
Has anyone ever objected to you
smoking cigarettes?
August 1981 45
February 1982 50
When was the last objection?
(% in last week)
August 1981 22
February 1982 27
In specific quantitative concept research carried out under the
aegis of Project Trout, the following were the key findings :
i)
Over 50% of Low Tar smokers are under pressure to
quit smoking or modify their behaviour.
ii) 43% of Middle Tar smokers are under similar pressure.
iii)
60% of smokers receive frequent household (both own and
other household) complaints about their smoking.
These complaints relate more to smoke (40%) and smell (30%)
than health (15%).
A key consideration in the decision to progress Project Trout was
the recognition that this high level of pressure on the smoking
habit from third parties has no current cigarette solution. At
least in the case of specific health concern the smoker has the
opportunity of moving to Low Tar. The only solution to social
..... Con t/d.
o
Page 3: 0000014579
m "~ m
o
° . .
3.
(]DNTEXT (Cont/d.) :
pressure is to quit, albeit temporarily. It can, therefore, be
argued that the need for the tobacco industry to address this
problem is critical to secure the total market against ~.
accelerating erosion.
GDNCEPT :
For the purposes of research, the concept of "a cigarette which
offers a 50% reduction in lit-end smoke" was used.
When acked their buying intentions for a product offering these
characteristics, the following results were obtained :
Very interested
Quite interested
Don' t know
Not very interested
Not at all interested
16%
37%
10%
17%
19%
The overall interest level compares favourably with that found
for the concept "Low Tar with Middle Tar taste", previously
considered by the U.K. smoker to be close to the ideal cigarette.
This relatively high level of interest was found amongst all
smoker groups but was more pronounced amongst women, AB's, Low
Tar smokers excluding Silk Cut and Middle Tar K.S. smokers with
health concern. The spontaneous perceived advantages of cigarettes
offering reduced sides tream were :
Less irritating/annoying to
non-smokers/less complaints/less
anti-soci al
%
32
Less staining
26
Less pollution/smoke in the air
23
Less smelly
Last longer/less burning away
19
9
Less damage to other people's health
Less Irrltatlng/gets in your eyes
0 thers
3
None/Don' t know
12
..... Cont/d.
cn
o
o
GJ
Page 4: 0000014579
-4-
e
ODNCEPT (Cont/d.) :
These results suggest that reduced sidestream is principally seen
as a means of reducing pressure from third parties through~improving
the social acceptability of smoking. Only a minority perceive
it to be concerned with the health question and a similar proportion
also relate it to some economy benefit through slower burning
proper ties.
The high level of interest found in the concept amongst all smoker
groups ~n the quantitative concept research was later subject to
some revision. Research designed to assess current knowledge of
the mechanics of free smoke and further qualitative research into
the concept itself suggested the following constraints on the
commercial viability of the project :
i)
There is confusion amongst smokers as to what is the
primary source of free smoke :
Li t-end 26%
E xhal ed 41%
Don't know 34%
Any market introduction would consequently need an accomp-
anying P.R. programme to educate target smokers about the
contribution of sidestream to total ambient smoke.
ll)
Despite the quantitative research evidence, it became
apparent through qualitative studies that there was
confusion in smokers' minds as to whether the end result
of sidestream reduction was a health or a social benefit.
Low Tar smokers relate it primarily to health, whereas Middle
Tar smokers believe it to be principally socially related.
ill)
Company policy from the outset was to keep Trout separate
from the smoking and health debate by targetting it solely
at the social irritant question.
The proposition was seen as an additional benefit which did
not in itself justify a sacrifice in mainstream smoking
characteristics. Trout's role was to contribute to a
reduction in third party criticism over an extended time
period. Thus the benefit is both secondary (designed for
non-smokers) and deferred (no immediate affect was expected).
This contrasts with the Low Tar concept where the benefit
(health) is also deferred but is nevertheless primary in that
it affects the smoker directly. Despite four out of five ~h
smokers accepting that Low Tar cigarettes are 'safer' the
Low Tar segment of the market is only 18%. The perceived
product deficiencies of these brands has been the obstacle
to its further development. It appears that in the case
P~
of the Trout proposition there is even less room for a
shortfall in mainstream smoking qualities.
..... Con t/d.
Page 5: 0000014579
-5-
e
. ..
.
CONCEPT (Cont/d.) :
iv)
The U.K. smoker is increasingly defensive about his habit,
having been under attack from the media and now hls.f.rlends
and family, yet he still lacks a logical argument to re-but
their criticisms, be they social or health related. He
therefore strongly resists any approach embodied in a brand
proposition which would lead him to being drawn into further
debate ~ the smoking question. This in turn requires that
any advertising proposition in support of Trout should not
lead to a re-evaluatlon of smoking per se. In specific terms,'~
it would be unwise to Overtly suggest that conventional
~ I
cigarettes are a pollution source and nor should the end {
benefits of reduced side stream be pointed out.
...__a
v)
There is also in the U.K. deeply engralned consumer scepticism
about tobacco manufacturers product claims. In comparatively
recent history, U.K. smokers have been exposed to non-
tobacco substitutes (NSM), Low Tar claims and Low Tar with
taste claims, all of which have either failed to llve un
to their promise or involved a sacrifice in traditional
smoking qualities. This scepticism is naturally fertile
ground for attacks on the credibility of the Trout proposition
from third parties.
vl)
The expected reservation about the proposition, that every-
body would have to smoke it to obtain the benefit, has
surprisingly not proved to be a major obstacle to its appeal
in the research carried out to date. Whilst smoky
atmospheres at social events are seen as an irritant,
most smokers are only crltlcised in relatively intimate
surroundings, particularly in the home by relatives or close
friends, when they are likely to be the only smoker involved.
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES :
Although Project Trout has been designed to fulfil the role of a
new brand development specifically for the U.K. market, there are
a variety of alternative development strategies which are worthy
of consideration :
i) The Industry Initiative vs. Exclusive to B.A.T :
Recognising that on the one hand the technical advances
which make Project Trout a practical proposition are not
exclusive to B.A.T, and on the other that the lon~ term
objective of the project is to secure the total market
from accelerating erosion, it could be argued that there
is a strong case for pooling the various manufacturers'
resources to initiate low sidestream products on an
industry-wlde basis.
..... Cont/d.
O
Page 6: 0000014579
-6-
e
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOP~NT STRATEGIES (Cont/d.) :
This would have the additional benefit of being mor~ ~ikely
to obtain official Government agency endorsement, which
does appear necessary to protect the proposition from
outside attack on its credibility. As the advances in paper
technology are not exclusive to B.A.T, this would also
prevent ~he danger of being pre-empted by competition.
It is important to bear in mind the issue confronting B.A.T
as a whole rather than the parochial interest of any
particular associate Company. The danger is that, by
introducing reduced sidestream products only into
developed markets, we could be open to the double standards
argument being raised by such bodies as the W.H.O.
If any activity on this proposition was seen to result
through Indus try co-operatlon, there are sufficient grounds
to counteract such attacks.
On the other side of the coin, the overriding argument of
keeping the project in-house is the clear market opportunity
the concept presents providing we can overcome the product
deficiencies rapidly and be first on the market. In addition
there is the obvious advantage of maintaining control over
the project's development by going it alone.
li)
New Brand Development vs. Existing Brands :
The arguments in favour of applying the proposition to all
brands rely on the adoption of a "softly-softly" approach,
in which the consumer is not advised of the change until
after the event. This has the particular advantage of
protecting the Company from outside criticism, which is
likely to arise with any overt industry response to the
social acceptability question. Allied to this is the
limited marketing costs involved in adopting a gradual
implementation process with no specific brand support.
It should be recognised, however, that such a project would
involve a lengthy development process spread across a
wide range of brands with appropriate intermediate stages.
This in turn has potential problems of confusion with existing
brand propositions and the possibility of alienating existing
smokers of these brands.
The arguments in favour of adopting a specific new brand
development route revolve around the commercial opportunities
the concept appears to present. Provided one can find a
suitable advertising platform, it is obviously more
advantageous to have the concept encapsulated in a single
proposition. As such, it is a far better performance monitor
of the appeal of the concept in true market conditions.
O
&0
..... Cont/d.
Page 7: 0000014579
-7-
.
. . °
e
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES (Cont/d.) :
ill)
Once the new brand development route has been accept,A,
there are a variety of alternatives in positioning style
available. These will be discussed in more detail under
the Brand Development heading.
Alterna~ive Launch Strategies :
As with all new brand development the range of options
available fo'r launch range from full national introduction
to reserve brand status with the usual opportunlty/cost
considerations. Any overt introduction is, however, likely
to provoke substantial public debate as a result of the
innovatory nature of the proposition in a contentious area.
This militates against a test town or regional roll-out
strategy as it is important to allow the target market the
opportunitY to try the product before public opinion has
hardened. On the assumption that all publicity is good
publicity, it would be a lost opportunity to have only
limited distribution at the time of launch.
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT :
The objective of producing a reduced sidestream cigarette whilst
maintaining, in general terms, the overall mainstream smoking
characteristics involve several cigarette construction problems.
In principle, sidestream can be reduced in the following ways :
i) Reduce the amount of tobacco to be burnt.
Options : a)
b)
shorten the tobacco rod.
incorporate substantial proportions
of expanded tobacco.
ii)
Change the ratio of mainstream to sldestream smoke by making
the fireball filter indented into the cigarette paper rod
through the use of heavy, low permeability papers.
lii)
Making the tobacco burn more slowly between puffs through
the use of fire retardent paper additives such as chalk and
MgO.
In practical terms, and assuming conventional cigarette appearance,
any low sidestream product is likely to have the following
characteristics :
i)
Low permeability papers with high levels of additives
to reduce the burn rate and keep the fireball enclosed.
ii)
Relatively high DIET inclusion to reduce the tobacco to
be burnt.
..... Cont/d •
o
Page 8: 0000014579
- 8-
4
°
. . °
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT (Cont/d.) :
ill)
Low pressure drop filter to correct the resulting imbalance
between mainstream PMWNF and CO deliveries.
iv) Relatively high filter ventilation to counteract the
relative increase in mainstream TPM.
!
This partlcula~ construction obviously leads to very different
smoke dynamics as opposed to conventional cigarettes, particularly
Middle Tar. This in turn has proved the principle obstacle to
achieving the dual objective of significant sldestream
reduction and acceptable mainstream smokln~ characteristics.
relative increase in mainstream TPM.
Experimental products have been submitted to consumer research at
two stages :
Stage I :
Objective :
To assess the mainstream smoking characteristics of the alternative
cigarette construction options in conjunction with the reduced
sidestream proposition.
Products :
Middle Tar : i)
li)
lii)
Low Tar :
i)
ll)
ill)
Research Methodology :
50 gsm paper with MgO and fibre add~tlves.
50 gsm paper with MgO only.
I00 gsm paper with MgO and fibre additives.
- All Ecusta papers.
50 gsm paper with MgO and fibre additives.
i00 gsm paper with MgO and fibre additives.
- Both Ecusta papers.
Schweltzer unconventional appearance :
Length : 70 mm.
Filter : 30 mm.
Tipping : 34 mm.
A total sample of 1200 smokers was recruited, split into
matched quotas of 200 for each particular product. Respondents
were exposed to concept statements whlch :
..... Cont/d.
Page 9: 0000014579
o
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT (Cont/d.) :
i) Stated the social acceptability problem.
ii) Described the cigarettes as a method of resolving; the problem.
Ill) Suggested this was achieved without significantly
affecting the mainstream smoking characteristics.
In the case of the short Schweitzer cigarette, there was an additional
claim that, despite its unconventional appearance, it nevertheless
performed in the same way as conventional cigarettes.
The research procedure was similar to that of a standard Total Offer
Test with reactions to the product concept being solicited both
pre and post trial.
Results :
PLACEMENT RE-CALL
Definitely/ Definitely/
Might Buy Mi~ht Buy
Low Tar :
50 gsm with fibre
I00 gsm with fibre
Schweitzer
75 46
73 37
47 36
Middle Tar :
50 gsm with fibre
50 gsm without fibre
I00 gsm with fibre
69 53
64 46
63 48
What is clear from these results is that, although the concept (with
the possible exception of the unconventional Schweltzer product)
provoked relatively high acceptance, the products themselves failed
to llve up to expectations. Indeed, those who were very/qult~
interested in buying both pre and post trial were only between
1-6% of each individual sub-sample.
Specific criticisms of the products were as follows :
Ecusta :
- Poor taste
- Harshness
..... Cont/d.
Page 10: 0000014579
-I0-
•
_ i °
PRODUCT 0EVELc~:MENT (Cont/d.) :
- Speed of burn (more pronounced in the I00 gsm version
and versions with fibre additives).
- Flaking ash (particularly wi th non-fibre add~Jive)
- Aroma (particularly the I00 gsm papers).
- ~h disliked/paper stays whole (principally
I~00 gsm version).
Schwei tzer :
- Shortness of the cigarette.
- Kept going out.
Significant differences in comparison with own regular
brand were found in the following areas :
r
Low Tar :
- S tronge r
- Less cool
- Less smooth
- Faster burning
- Less pleasant taste
Middle Tar :
- Less strong
- Less cool
- Fas ter burning
Less pleasant taste
m
Conclusions :
i)
ii)
lli)
The concept provoked considerable consumer interest.
Actual product mainstream performance was nevertheless
disappointing.
Overt signalling of the side stream reduction through
an unconventional cigarette appearance reduced the
concept appeal. All further development would
therefore be based on conventional K.S. cigarette
dimensions.
..... Cont/d.
