Abstract
In the 1970s, the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Comany (B&W) developed a brand of "low gas" cigarettes called FACT. The ensuing ad campaign for FACT that actually drew smokers' attention to some of the dangerous gases (aldehydes, acetaldehyde, priopionaldehyde, acrolein) that are present in cigarette smoke. FACT was aimed at the health-conscious smoker, much like Lorillard Tobacco Company's Kent cigarettes with the Micronite filter of the 1950s.
This 1978 B&W memo, however, indicates that B&W's management eventually saw tremendous danger in this type of marketing, saying
"B&W should not pursue a new product positioned as a low gas-low 'tar'...
...We do not support definition in advertising of the problem of gas in order to specifically communicate its consumer benefit and distinguish it from low 'tar.' To supply such a definition would require overt references to the alleged ciliatoxic and cardiovascular ill effects of smoking. The possible ramifications of this in the Legal, Regulatory and Policy area are appalling....A likely result of such activity on our part would be escalation of quitting rates among smokers...
Page 1: 0000440882
\
TO:
CO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
(
(
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
F, E. McKEOWN
D. S. Johnston
E. A. Kully
G, T. REID
March 22, 1978
New Product Gas/I-Iealth Strategy
In light of the Management decision to terminate our national marketplace
use of the FACT brand name, the Brand Group felt an obligation to review
our Corporate interest in the gas/health strategy that has been our
operating assumption since accepting responsibility for this brand in
February, 1977. This document provides our recommendation concerning
future Corporate pursuit of this strategy.
Recommendation
B&W should not pursue a new product positioned as a low gas-low 'tar'
nor should we attempt to obtain awareness equity in low gas byusing it as
taste/satisfaction support. B&W should develop and evaluate a broad
:~::,~=~ ~ ~::, : health/no risk concept along the lines specified by Gio Gori, This should
,:::ii:iii~::~iii"i:?i:i:! :]~ii:i i i_be a high priority assignment commencing irnn~-ediately with
the single-
:'"J~ :;~:v':<-i~':"~.%minded attention of two Brand Group personnel.
Rationale for Termination of Low Gas Strategy
1)
Extensive testing of FACT advertising over a three-year period
has indicated that consumers do not perceive low gas as a different
benefit than low 'tart. They both are perceived as generic health
ideas. We believe based on this experience that low gas per se
is not a compelling consumer benefit and it will not yield successful
advertising if presented without substantial problem definition and
elaboration.
6 7o z 6
Page 2: 0000440882
2)
-2- (
• We do not support •definition inadvertising of the problem of
gas in order to specifically communicate its consumer benefit
and distinguish it from low 'tar'. To supply such definition would
require overt references to the alleged ciliatoxic and cardiovascular
ill effects of smoking. The possible ramifications of this in the
Legal, RegLLlatory, and Policy area are appalling. We also believe
it is simply bad selling strategy to use such negative scare tactics
to sell cigarettes. A likely result of such activity on our part
would be escalation of quitting rates among smokers.
3)
4)
A generic low gas strategy for B&W with our current product line
is vulnerable to even lower gas competitive products such as True,
Decade, Carlton, Now, Lark II, and L&M Flavor Lights. Liggett &
Myers is certainly in a corporate position to use this strategy and
demonstrate in advertising superiority to our product.
We believe that, in addition to low 'tar', special filter products are
perceived by consumers as low gas cigarettes. The 24 Brand Study
confirmed this to a surprising degree with its national sample and
top-of-mind responses.
Product Imagery (% of all smokers)
Parliament Carlton Lark True Merit Vantage
Made With
Gas Trap Filter 8% 9% 7% 35% 9% 13%
Mean % For All
Product Attributes 3.77%
4.13% 2.81% 7. 36% 4.25% 4.74%
Index of Gas Trap
........ Awareness To
:~:-:~:":":? ..... "-:Awareness Of All
Attribute s
212 218 249 476 212 274
5)
These data certainly suggest that a low gas feature is not new or
unique.
We believe the implied negative selling thrust of a low gas feature
may still get high trial, but will certainly suffer from poor
conversion as happened with the original FACT. The reason
for this is the extremely poor taste/satisfaction expectation that
low gas sets up in consumers' minds that leads to poor product
perception after actual use. The nebulous health benefit of low
• E~'.
gas ls~msufficient power to cause smokers to accept poor taste
perception with the result being a switch to a "tastier" brand.
Page 3: 0000440882
l
w
4
C -3- (
Rationale For Unvrillingness~ To Use Gas As Taste Support
i)
A review Of extensive FACT ad testing over the last three
years indicate s univer sally weak taste / satisfaction perception .....
even when executed with overt full flavor visuals. While
the FACT name may have contributed to this weakness, we do
not believe it was a major impediment. Moreover, a review
of the VANGUARD "Anti-Fume" and "Guaranteed" executions
of several years ago indicates the same flavor perception weakness.
The B&W image study also proves thesame weakness exists for
all major "filter story" brands (Kent, Tareyton, VICEROY,
Lark, Parliament, etc. ). In summary, we believe gas reduction
or filtration emphasis totally contradicts smokers' predispositions
about flavor and satisfaction. To use gas as support for a flavor
promise is not sound strategy and will result in only a net
impression of low 'tar' or generalized health benefits.
2)
We believe a basic principle of successful advertising is single-
mindedness. We do not believe we can establish low gas consumer
awareness and simuitaneously be perceived as delivering taste and
satisfaction. Gas perception will probably overwhelm the taste
ideas causing the brand to suffer from poor conversion as discussed
in the point above. Simultaneous communication of low gas and
good taste will probably only lead to dilution of product imagery,
confusion, or rejection,
Rationale for Pursuit of the Gori Concept
1)
We believe our Corporate interest is in a new, unique positioning
in the "health" arena, not necessarily in a low gas position. Gas
is not a currently understood smoker problem yet, health is.
Rather than define the gas problem, we prefer to work against the
existing consumer need which the Gori concept addresses. This
has significantly less risk and more opportunity for success.
2)
The Gori concept enables us to address the "health" issue in a
positive manner rather than a negative manner. The consumer
benefit can be emphasized rather than the problem. We believe
this is a better selling strategy.
3)
The Gori concept actually encompasses low gas within its benefit.
It goes beyond low gas to the ultimate "health" position and therefore
significantly advances our thrust into the primary future area of
consumer needs and lessens the opportunity for competitive preemption.
Page 4: 0000440882
g
, -4- (.
4)
The Gori concept provides the smoker with a tangible, factual
"health" benefit that makes it much easier to Justify reduced
taste and smoking satisfaction. This will. enhance conversion
compared to the more nebulous, less easily understood low gas
pos it ion.
Finally, our disposition of existing "Taste Test" and "Clean Taste"
FACT advertising should be contingent upon the Brand Group's analysis
of the ad research which is due 3/31/78. Our recommendation will be
forthcoming the following week.
Let's discuss this subject at your earliest convenience.
, -. .... .
GTR/lla
G. T. R.
°%
_4P_
