Tobacco Documents Online

R 0

v CIGARETTE TRACKING STUDY 1982 ~ ~ Marketing Research Dept. Philip Morris, U.S.A. ~ ~ 43. ~ r.~

PREFACE The study represents the results of daily telephone interviews of a national random sampling of U.S adults (18+). They were conducted between September 1 and November 8, 1981; and between January 8 and March 4, 1982. Two research suppliers conducted the interviewing. They worked separately, but used the same questionnaire, sample design, and interviewing procedures. During the entire study, representatives of the PM USA Marketing Research Department monitored the interviewing, in addition to personnel of the research companies themselves. Interviews were conducted in all cases with "primary" respondents who smoke cigarettes. In the January-March work, the "primary" respondents were also asked brand usage information about other smokers in the household, providing information about these "secondary" family smokers. Brand share data are based on a combination of these "primary" and "secondary" smokers -- a total of 22,800 smokers. The numbers involved are: Sept.-Nov. Commercial Analysts Co. Portion Sept.-Nov. Winona Research Inc. Portion Jan.-Mar. Commercial Analysts Co. Portion otal "Primary" 9000 9000 3200 21,200 "Secondary" -- -- 1600 1,600 Total 9000 9000 4800 22,800 Similar studies going back to 1970 are available on a basis essentially comparable to this study. The share of smokers data, show here, is to be distinguished from the M.S.A. share of vo ume data, also reported by the Marketing Research Department. The Parts of this report, which can be located by tabs, are: Table of Contents Index to Subjects 1. Smoker demographics -- 1982 (Tables 1-60) 2. Share Indexes -- 1982 (Tables 61-66) 3. Smoker shares and profiles -- 1982 plus historical trends (Tables 67-86) 4. Low-tar data (Tables 87-106) r•a 0 4* 5. Miscellaneous information (Tables 107-123) ~ (Advertising awareness, Cigarette purchasing patterns, Perceived Out-of-stocks, Vending, .~ .~ r•a .~ Promotional devices, Generics, Spanish-speaking shares by area, Hard-box smokers, and Recent changes noted) ~ w

Note, that for the 1982 Tracking Study filters are broken down into two categories as follows: I "MARKETED" LOW-TARS (defined below) i FULL-FLAVOR FILTERS (all fIlters not classified as "Marketed Low-tars" -- roughly 14+ mg.) "MARKETED" LOW-TARS consist of: 1 ULTRA-LOWS ("The lowest" Ultra-lows: All Cambridge, Carlton and Now plus All other Ultra- ows": All others at 1-6 mg.) i FLAVOR LOWS (All 7-13 mg., p us Eve Lights, Kent 100's, Saratoga) The tar number assigned to a packing is that one with which a respondent would most likely have been familiar, as of January, 1982. Note too the defi ni ti ons of Ni el sen County-s i zes : A = Counties within a i1,etro area having over 1.1MM population (25 areas) 8= Metro areas or Non-metro counties having 150M+ population (and not in A) C = Other counties having 35M-I5OM population D = All Other Neil Holbert

sTvztvTvoti TABLE OF CONTENTS

0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 ~ 4:k .~ e-R ~

0 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: DEMOGRAPHICS SHARES OF SMOKERS BY BRAND PART I PM brands : sex, age, race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Competitive brands: sex, age, race . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PM brands: education, volume of consumption. ........ 3 Competitive brands: education, volume of consumption . . . . 4 PM brands: income, Nielsen county, Spanish-speaking. .. . 5 Competitive brands: income, Nielsen county, Spanish-speaking 6 • 0 SHARES OF SMOKERS BY PACKING: PM Sex, age, race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Education, volume of consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Income, Nielsen county, Spanish-speaking . . . . . . . . . . 9 SHARES OF SMOKERS BY PACKING: COMPETITIVE Sex, age, race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Education, volume of consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Income, Nielsen county, Spanish-speaking . . . . . . . . . . 12 SHARES OF SMOKERS BY COMPANY Sex, age, race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Education, volume of consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Income, Nielsen county, Spanish-speaking . . . . . . . . . . 15 SHARES OF SMOKERS BY TYPE Sex, age, race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Education, volume of consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Income, Nielsen county, Spanish-speaking . . . . . . . . . . 18 HIGHLIGHTS OF SELECTED PM BRANDS AND PACKINGS: 1982 VS. 1981 AND 1980 B&H 100' s : Shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Prof i l es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Marl boro: Shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Profi l es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 I ndexe s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Meri t: Shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Profi l es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 I ndexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Par l i ament: Shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Profi l es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Va. Sl ims: Shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Profi l es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 I ndexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

0 • PART I TABLES (Cont'd) Barclay: '81- 82. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Camel : ' 80-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Ca r1 ton : ' 80-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Gol den Lts. ' 80-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Kent : ' 80-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Koo l : ' 81-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Mo re : ' 80-' 8 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Newport : ' 80-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Now: ' 80-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Sal em: ' 81-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Tri umph : ' 80-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 True : ' 80-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Vantage : ' 81-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Wi nston: `81-' 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 PROFILES OF SELECTED COMPETITIVE BRANDS AND PACKINGS: ADDITIONAL PROFILES S2l ected PM brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . Sel ected Low-tar brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sel ected types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Black and Spanish-speaking smokers ('80-'82) . . . . . . . i"IEDIAN AGE OF SiMUKERS PM packings '78-'82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Competitive packings ('78-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM and competitive brands ('78-'82). . . . . . . . . . . . Company (' 78-' 82 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Type (' 78-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONSUMPTION Demographi cs (' 80-' 82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM and competitive brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Type ( ' 79-' 81) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Volume of consumption: Demographic Profiles. . . . . . . . 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 PART 2 SHARE INDEXES RELATIONSHIP -BETWEEN OVERALL SHARE AND SHARE FOR SPECIFIC GROUPS 0 PART 2 TABLES Low-tars: Non-menthol, Menthol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Low-tars: by tar level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Full-flavors: Non-menthol, Menthol . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Compani es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Selected PM packings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Selected competitive packings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

9 PART 3 SMOKER SHARES AND PROFILES: HISTORICAL DATA Sex: PM shares (' 77-' 82 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM profi l es (' 78-' 82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART 3 TABLES 67 68 Age: PM shares ('81-'82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 PM profiles ('81-'82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 18-24 shares for top ten packings ('78-'82). .... 71 Race: PM shares ('77-'82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 PIM prof i l es ( ' 78-' 82 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Sex: Competitive shares ('77-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Competitive profiles ('78-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Age: Competitive shares ('80-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Competitive profiles ('78-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Race: Competitive shares ('77-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . Competitive profiles ('78-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . 78 79 Sex: Type shares ('78-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Type prof i l es ( ' 78-' 82 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Age: Type shares (' 81-' 82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Type profiles ('81-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Race: Type shares ('78-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Type prof i l es ( ' 79-' 82 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Switching and trial: historical ('70-'82). . . . . . . . . 82 83 84 85 86 !

- PART 4 LOW-TAR DATA PART 4 TABLES Smokers' perception of tar level of their own bra-nd Leading Low-tars '79-'3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 PM packi ngs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 88 Competitive Low-tar brands . . . . . . . . ~ 89 Selected packings ranked by "very low" perception. . 90 All brands combined ('78'82) . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 By typ e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Low-tar awareness among key smoker group ('80-'81) . . . . 93 Smokers' perception of tar number of tileir own packing: PM (' 78-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 !Cey Low-tar dimensions ('79-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Selected Low-tar brands Unaided and totai brand awareness ('78-'82). .... 96 Claimed advertising awareness ('77-'82). . . . . 97 Claimed advertising awareness by demographics. ... 98 Unaided awareness of "Ultra Lights" in brand names('81-'82) 99 Likelihood of switching to a lower-tar brand ('80'82). .. 100, 101 Share of Low-tar smokers: age within sex, race, Spanish-speaking ('80-'82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Profiles of key smoker groups on Low-tar usage ('80-'82) . 103 Tried: Selected Low-tars (triers, not switchers). ..... 104 Merit Ultra Lights 100's . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 And awareness of selected Ultras by Parent Smokers . 106 ~ ~ # Ph fi•5 Pk C:+