Abstract
This report, prepared in 1994 for Philip Morris by a company called Marketing Perceptions, Inc. relates the results of focus group testing done to evaluate two names proposed for a new brand of cigarette targeted at young men: "Barking Dog" and "Barking Fish" brand cigarettes.
The name "Barking Dog" was meant to convey images of loyalty, "tried and true," "never bites" and "man's best friend."
It backfired completely. Instead, the document says in each focus group,
"Most of the men rejected the positioning. They weren't certain if, these days they could think of their cigarettes as 'my best friend.'... Some also suggested that there could be a 'negative spin' in interpreting the positioning, 'being dependent on your DOG'...In each group, men noted that a Barking Dog is angry, vicious, noisy, annoying or an intrusion."
As for "Barking Fish" cigarettes, as might be expected, "...Most found the images unsettling."
"There was general agreement that the pack with the fish graphic was 'the worst," immediately bringing to mind smelly, fishy, wet-tasting cigarettes."
Well, duh.
Kudos to the young men who recognized that cigarettes are far from "man's best friend," and to those who refused to swallow the "Barking Fish" hook.
Fields
- Quotes
SUBJECT: BARKING DOG & BARKING FISH: San Diego Focus Groups 3/7-3/9
Attached is the Summary of Findings from focus groups conducted on 317-3D in San Diego examining the Barking Dog and Barking Fish concepts.
The following highlights some of the key findings:
BARKING DOG
Overall, neither of the Barking Dog positionings was well received by respondents. The name "Barking Dog" prompted negative reactions across all groups.
respondents. The nan-e "Barking Dog prompted negative reactions across all
groups.
- In general terms, dogs connote bad things (i.e. "This car is a real dog.")
Smoking expectations generated by the brand name are for a harsh, rough taste.
Viewing the "Best Friend" campaign, respondents quickly understood the brand's positioning but rejected the validity of a cigarette being your best friend...
The general tonality of the "No Collar. No Tags. No Owner" visuals and copy clearly communicated a loner image, However, visuals suggested a "Yuppy" trying to act like a rebel, producing a mixed message for some.
BARKING FISH
The majority of respondents did not have positive reactions to the name
Barking Fish or to the brand's positioning. Most respondents associated the
executions with alternative or lunatic fringe music groups and did not identify
with the people to whom they thought this imagery would appeal.
• The brand narre evoked negative taste expectations.
- Company
- Philip Morris
- Author
- Halpern, M.
- Recipient
- Cohen, C.
RegionCalifornia
LitigationStmn/Produced
TypeMEMO, MEMORANDUM
Subjecttarget market
advertising
advertising campaign
Document Images
Page 1: txh91a00
PHILIP MORRIS USA INTER-OFFiCECORRESPONDENCE
120 PARK AVENUE. NEW YORK, NY 10017-5592
TO: Carl Cohen DATE: April 12, 1994
FROM: Marian Halpern
SUBJECT: BARKING DOG & BARKING FISH: San Diego Focus Groups 3/7-3/9
Attached is the Summary of Findings fromfocus groups conducted on 317-3/9 in
San Diego examining the Barking Dog and Barking Fish concepts.
The following highlights some of the key findings:
BARKING DOG
Overall, neither of the Barking Dog positionings was well received by
respondents. The name "Barking Dog prompted negative reactions across all
groups.
- In general terms, dogs connote bad things (i.e. "This car is a real dog.")
- Smoking expectations generated by the brand name are for a harsh,
rough taste.
Vewing the "Best Friend" campaign,respondents quickly understood the
brand's positioning but rejected the validity of a cigarette being your best
friend.
Some younger respondents appreciated the humor of the Best Friend
executions.
The general tonality of the "No Collar. No Tags. No Owner" visuals and copy
clearly communicated a loner image. However,visuals on specific boards
suggested a "Yuppy" tiying to act like a rebel, producing a mixed message for
some.
A few younger adult respondents liked the attitude communicated by
this campaign.
BARKING FISH
The majority of respondents did not have positive reactions to the name
Barking Fish or to the brand's positioning. Most respondents associated the
executions with alternative or lunatic fringe music groups and did not identify
with the people to whom they thought this imagery would appeal.
The brand name evoked negative taste expectations.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
cc: D. Beran N. Lund
K. Eisen B. Mikulay
P. Fernandez K. Miller
E. Gee S. Norris
Page 2: txh91a00
KeS.L11~LEM CZOC[.~:r 1TIZ~
"BRAND X "SAN DIEGO FOCUS GROUPS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
PREPARED FOR:
PHILIP MORRIS
APRIL, 1994
JOB #94-2-3207
Renaissance Office Center 15 Engie Street, Englewood, New Jersey 07631 (201) 569-6088
Fr1X (201) 569-8154
Page 3: txh91a00
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
Stage I of the "BRAND X" qualitative research has recently been completed in San
Diego, CA.
Nine (9) focus groups were conducted, as follows:
2 groups among 18-24 Marlboro male smokers
3 groups among 18-24 Camel male smokers
2 groups among 25-34 Marlboro male smokers
2 groups among 25-34 Camel male smokers
The young adult men's groups were exposed to BARKING DOG-2 versions and
BARKING FISH.
The older men's groups were exposed to both versions of BARKING DOG, and only
some of these groups were exposed to BARKING FISH.
Concept stimulus material for each New Concept included both Positioning Com-
munications Boards and prototype packaging.
1
1larketin~- Perceptions, Inc.
Page 4: txh91a00
KEY FINDINGS
BARKING DOG
Some of the younger adult men appreciated either the humor of the BARKING DOG
(Best Friend) prototype executions, or the BARKING DOG (Rebel, Own Man) attitude
of the alternatepositioninQ approach for this Concept. However, the brand name,
BARKING DOG, prompted negative reactions across all groups; few wanted to identify
with the imagery of the Brand Name, and smoking expectations were generally
negative.
BARKING FISH
Neither the positioning executions nor the Brand Name BARKING FISH evoked
positive responses. The prototype executions were typically associated with
"Alternative" or "Lunatic Fringe" music groups. The Brand Name prompts negative
smoking expectations.
2
Marketina Perceptions, Inc.
Page 5: txh91a00
DETAILED DISCUSSION
~tiiarketiniz Perceptions, Inc. ,
Page 6: txh91a00
BARKING DOG
"MAN'S BEST FRIEND"
Nine Concept Positioning Boards were exposed to convey the intent and tonality of
this Concept.
Most of the men in each group initially reacted to the pictures of the dogs, commenting
as to whether they liked dogs, and which among these dogs they liked best. As they
began to settle in with reading the copy, they talked about favorite specific statements
and visuals ("Pick up a dog" and "Walkin' the dog" often commended).
Once past this initial phase of examination, most of these consumers seemed to
understand the intended positioning: dog is man's best friend, everything else can
go wrong but your dog will always be tried and true. The men said that they "got the
idea" -- "They're saying that this cigarette will never let you down, will be your best
friend."
The Boards that appeared to most clearly convey the positioning included: "Your girl
left, but your dog didn't" and, "The only way to have a friend is to be one."
Most of the men rejected the positioning. They weren't certain if, these days, they
could think of their cigarettes as "my best friend." Some also suggested that there
could be a "negative spin" in interpreting the positioning, "being dependent on you
'DOG.`
But negative responses to this Concept were far more attached to the Brand Name,
BARKING DOG, than to the Positioning Boards or the "message."
"They're nice ads. They're fun to look at: But I would never buy a
cigarette called BARKING DOG."
r1i
o
men noted that a Barking Dog is: angry
vicious
In each group
noisy
annoying -~
,
,
,
,
, ~
or an intrusion. NO
0
z
4
~Vlarketing Perceptions, Inc. ,
Page 7: txh91a00
While "Dogs" are cute, friendly, warm, etc. "A Dog" is familiarly used to refer to "a
lousy version of something"--"This place has gone to the dogs," or "This car is a real
dog."
Most thought they would be more likely to ask for this brand by "DOGS" than the full
name. Whether by "DOGS" or "BARKING DOGS" as a brand name, most felt this
sounded like a gimmick or "a joke." If they decided to buy a pack, it would be for
conversation value, or "to have a pack to save, because this will never last."
"Can you imagine someone asking what you are smoking, and
saying, 'Barking Dog? It sounds like a joke. I just can't take this
seriously."
Smoking expectations were for a rough, harsh taste. The claim "Never Bites" was
seen, and understood to suggest that, unlike a Barking Dog, this "Dog" won't bite, but
few men believed that would be true with this Brand Name.
There were light-hearted comments about "dog poop" and wonderings if a carton
would be called "a fitter." The Lights version, men suggested, could be called "Pups."
And, all of these comments, men assured us, were intended to convey that they could
not take this Concept seriously, and couldn't imagine this actually being a brand of
cigarettes.
When asked to review the Concept Boards again, each group remarked:
The Concept is clearly for men; "man and his dog" -- "No woman would
smoke this cigarette."
The Concept is obviously a Discount-Priced Brand, based on the name
and pack design.
~
0
There were some volunteered comments that there are too many different types of ~
dogs to convey a specific brand imagery; most men felt there should be one "manly" z
or "tough dog" as the symbol for this brand (German Shepherd, Pitbull, Bulldog, M
J
Labrador). 1_171
5
Marketing Perceptions, Inc.
Page 8: txh91a00
There were also some remarks of "mixed messages" in terms of the consumer target
for this Concept. The older man with the Bulldog and the Jumping Dog Man In
Raincoat suggested an older target. Some of the young adult male visuals
(Bandanna, and Sunglasses) looked a little too."Yuppish" to be "your average guy."
The one Board that most clearly conveyed the positioning and a relatable targeting
was: "Your girl left" -- guy in jeans; "good-lookin' dog."
6
Marketiniz Perceptions, Inc. ,
Page 9: txh91a00
BARKING DOG
NO COLLAR. NO TAGS. NO OWNER
Six Concept Boards were displayed to convey the positioning and intent of this
Concept.
Many of the men felt that these Boards communicated a mixed message:
The general tonality of the visuals plus the copy were clearly understood
to create an image of a loner, a man without strings attached, a"guy who
does what he wants." James Dean was a frequent reference. The "Route
66" Board was most often referenced as the best source of this image.
Some of the specific Boards, however, suggested a "Yuppy" trying to act
like a rebel. A weekend smoker, who takes off his suit and tries to play
the part of a loner. Calvin Klein denims, large gold bracelet, large rings
seemed to provide these images.
Some of the young adult Marlboro smokers identified with the "James Dean" inter-
pretation, noting that it is a contemporary, urban version,of the Marlboro Man. "1
wouldn't mind being able to walk away from it, do what I want, go where I want."
Most of the young adult Camel smokers felt that the "Loner" image was not their style.
"I'd rather be part of a crowd."
Most of the older men saw this as targeted to young adult men.
However, regardless of attitude about the brand personality, very few of these men
could connect this imagery to the Brand Name, BARKING DOG.
"1 don't see what any of this has to do with BARKING DOG."
0
~
r
"I can't even connect these pictures to a cigarette called BARKINGDOG." ~
0
~
-~
7
C Mmarketinsy Perceptions, Inc.
Page 10: txh91a00
"The pictures, and that line (copy) have nothing to do with the cigarette. I'd think these
were ads for Calvin Klein or some men's cologne." Even the packaging graphics,
most felt, looks more like a "style statement" than a pack of cigarettes.
BARKING DOG, most suggested, is an unappealing name. It brings to mind a noisy,
angry dog "a guy on the road wouldn't want to have anything to do with." A Barking
Dog is a nuisance, something to "get rid of."
Based on the Concept Boards' imagery, the cigarette was expected to be strong, and
maybe a little rough.
The Boards clearly conveyed a "young adult male" target.
It was difficult for most to determine whether this brand would be sold at discount
pricing or premium pricing. The brand name suggests a discount price because it
is such an improbable name that no one felt they could take it seriously; "The name
sounds cheap." Also, some projected that the image of the Loner, Drifter would
suggest a "man who would look for an off-price brand."
However, those who used the upscale, designer-clothes, Yuppie-pretender image
combined this with the stylish pack design to wonder if this might not be a Specialty
Store Brand, at premium prices.
8
IVlarketina Perceptions, Inc.
