Further Evaluation of Delivery Information Influence on Subjective Acceptability of a Low Delivery Cigarette

Product Design

Further Evaluation of Delivery Information Influence on Subjective Acceptability of a Low Delivery Cigarette

Date: May 1976
Length: 20 pages
1000363042-3061
Jump To Images

http://tobaccodocuments.org/product_design/1000363042-3061.html

snapshot_pm 1000363042-1000363061

Abstract

Describes how providing smokers delivery information influences the acceptability of low delivery cigarettes. Finds delivery level disclosure influences acceptability primarily in: females in the 35 plus age bracket, "health smokers," and smokers who smoke 30 or more cigarettes per day. States "a real marketing advantage is gained by calling attention to the delivery values of low delivery cigarettes."

User-Contributed Notes

Fields

Author: Martin, Peggy L (PM State Gov. Relations Director)
1994; Schori, T.R. (BW Divison Mgr. of Consumer Research for '79-80)
Recipient: Budne, Thomas A. (PM Product Assurance and Statistical Services Manager); Claflin, Warren E. (PM R&D Engineer, Process Development)
Defense; Associate Principle Scientist; Daniel, Harry G. (PM R&D Planning Coordinator c. 1975-82)
Research Professional; Daylor, Frank L. (PM Gen. Products Development. Mgr., R&D)
Was involved in flavor development for Philip Morris; worked for PM Research and Development in Products Development 1962-93.; Fagan, Raymond (PM Principal Scientist c. 1968-83)
Principal Scientist at Philip Morris Research Center in Richmond, Virginia, between around 1968-84.; Gannon, Walter F., Ph.D. (PM New Product Development Dir.)
Defense; Houck, W. G.
Associate Professional; Howes, Robert
Technician; Johnson, Myron (PM Consumer data/research dept.)
Mr. Johnson worked for Philip Morris, Inc. He provided consultative aide to Barbara Forrest, particularly in a development of record forms, instruction sheets, and data treatment procedures for the SEX-2 Study as written by him on March 3, 1969. The basic question to the SEX-2 Study was "To what extent is daily smoke intake a function of the cigarette smoke?" Mr. Johnson is also to co-write the final report. (UCSF000083-85); Jones, Barbara W. (PM Behavioral Research Asst. Scientist, 1974)
Assistant Scientist at Philip Morris working on the Behavioral Research Program in 1974.; Levy, Carolyn J., Ph.D. (PM Youth Smoking Prevention Sr.VP (1998-2002))
Carolyn Levy is a long time Philip Morris scientist who has intimate knowledge of smoker behavior, psychology and PM's addiction studies. Studied and reported at PM on smoker psychology, 1974-75. Studied the role of nicotine in reinforcing smoker behavior in 1976 (1003293201). Levy also has knowledge of the importance of the youth market to future cigarette sales. In a Mar. 31, 1981 PM report Levy wrote, "Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer...The smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly important to Philip Morris." (1003636640) Appointed Assistant Director of Consumer Research at PM in 1988; Sr. VP Marketing and Sales Information in 1995; Was Sr. VP of PM's Youth Smoking Prevention Programs 1998.; Meyer, Leo F. (PM Research Director, scientist)
Defense; Osdene, Thomas Stefan, Ph.D. (Director of Science and Technology, Philip Morris [1986])
Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry. Ten years of research when he started with PM in 1965. Worked in Chemical Research Division of PM 1965-66; Chemical and Biological Research Division 1966-69; Director of Research 1969-1984, also assumed independent position as Director of Research and Extramural Studies during these years; became Director of Science and Technology in 1984, reporting directly to Philip Morris USA Executive VP Mark Serrano. Involved with Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) 1988. Attended PM's Operation Downunder Conference in June, 1987. Retired 1993.; *Resnick, Frank E. (Use Resnik, Frank Edward) (PM Research Manager, c. 1966)
Philip Morris Research Manager, 1966; Ryan, Frank J. (PM Scientist)
Philip Morris scientist (circa 1973), developed smoker puff-profiles, compiled data on compensation and lip occlusion of ventilation holes. Associate Senior Scientist with PM, c. 1987.; Seligman, Robert B. (PM VP of R&D c. 1976-82)
Vice President of Research and Development at Philip Morris Richmond, VA 1976-1982. Reported to Senior Vice President of Operations. In 1982 transferred to tobacco technology group. Wanted to share ammonia and other tobacco technology with PM International companies.; Thomson, Richard N. (PM Development Director, scientist)
Defense; Udow, Alfred (Consumer Research Dept., PM c. 1972)
PM Consumer Research and Marketing Departments. Famous for intemperate written comments. Told the truth.; Wakeham, Helmut R. R., Ph.D. (PM R&D VP)
Vice President and Director of Research & Development, Philip Morris
Hypothesis: Behavior Targeting
Cigarette's effect of enhancing/mitigating specific behaviors; Low-yield cigarettes
Modification of low yield products to assure that adequate levels of nicotine delivery are maintained, and effects of yield changes on toxicity and dependence.; Measuring human smoking behavior
Measuring the effects of changes in human smoking behavior on intake of nicotine and smoke constituents.; Smoking psychology and behavior; Use of tobacco processing/ blends
Modification of tobacco products through changes in tobacco processing and use of blends, and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity.
Keyword: Attribute perception ratings; Consumer acceptability (Consumer preference); Daily intake; Human testing; Low delivery (Reduced delivery); Nicotine delivery (Smoke nicotine or nicotine yield); Perception of draw; Puff count; Strength attributes
Smoke Constituent: Nicotine; Total particulate matter
Design Component: Butt length; Circumference; Porous tipping paper; Pressure drop (PD, Resistance to draw (RTD), Flow rate or Draft); Static burn rate; Tobacco density (Blend density, rod density); Tobacco weight
Named Organization: Product Opinion Lab (industry-funded); Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for laws against deceptive advertising)
Enforces laws against false and deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising, sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of cigarettes.
Subject: Blends (Design); Effects—Smoking Behavior (Effects); Low Yield Cigarettes (Products); Pressure Drop (Design); Puff Count (Measures); Smoke Nicotine (Measures); Test/Consumer Preference (Testing); Test/Smoking Behavior (Testing)
Brand: Marlboro (PM); EXPERIMENTAL

Document Images

Page 1: bvp64e00

® 0 I E ~ 0 I I I 0 r I I r ' CONFIDEMTIAL RTHER EVALUATDON OF DELIVERY INFORMATION INFLUENCE ON' BJECTIlVE ACCEPTABILITY OF A LOW DELIVERY CIGARETTE r

Page 2: bvp64e00

I I IT Accession No. 76-079 Copy No. . Issued To PHILIP MORRIS U,Sa AR E S E A R C H C E N T E R CHARGE NO. & TITLE: 1600 - Smoker Psychiology TYPE REPORT: OANNUAL OSEMIANNUAL a COMPLETION DATE: May, 1976 REPORT TITLE: PERIOD COVERED: CONFlDENTIAL FURTHER EVALUATION OF DELIVERY INFORMATION INFLUENCE ON SUBJECTIVE ACCEPTABILITY OF A LOW DELIVERY CIGARETTE I i F IJ L Li WR I TTEN BY c CC / a 0 y - ~61LG. Martin- and APPROVED BY DISTRIBUTIO : ~ H . a kl~d~.D R. Seligmar~_~, W. Gann~on ~' T. Osdene R. ThomsonGJLJJ' R. FaganCLQ-9 F. Daylor KEYWORDS: William L. Dunn; L. Meyer J-L10 H. Daniel W. Claflin M. Johnston W. Hiouck. F. Ryan B. Jones -~~ T. R. Schor_i ti_ ;. R. Howes C. Levy T. Budne - NY A. U d o w - N'Y a~ Day File (2) Central Fi l e (2) IndexerC{11;0 Acceptability Enhancement, 9 mg Tar, Strength Suggestibility

Page 3: bvp64e00

r r ~ I ~ t E F I L L L Cigarettes at two delivery levels (15 mg and 9 mg) were rated oniacceptability and strength by National POL nonmenthol smokers. delivery informatilon upon the subj'ective rating,s of cigarettes at ballots. The purpose of the test was to determine the effect of nicotine delivery levels clearly marked on the packs and on the One panel of 500 rated the cigarettes with no delivery information supplied. A second panel of 500 rated the cigarettes with tar and' two distinctively different delivery 1'~evels. . _ ~. With no delivery information provided, both cigarettes were jud'ged equally acceptable; when the delivery information was provided the .9 mg cigarette was rated more acceptable than the control ci'garette:: Females in the 35+ b k t h lth an '' age rac e , ea smokers, and those p elists smoking 30+ cigarettes/day were most influenced when given the delivery information. Males and regular filter smokers rated the cigarettes_equally acceptable in both conditions. The importance of the delivery information is further emphasizedi in the ascribed strength ratings. Females and health filter smokers judged the cigarettes as being significantly different in strength in both conditions, but contrary to normal expecta- tions they did not judge the weaker cigarette as more acceptable when the cigarette deliveries were withheld. Since the only variable that is changed is the presentation,, the concliusion is that specific delivery identification iis more important to these smokers thanipreviously estimated." The practicall impliication of these finding,s is that a real marketing advantage is gained by calling attention to the delivery values of low delivery cigarettes, the effect being greatest among those smokers already most li,kely to buy the low delivery ci,garette. t:

Page 4: bvp64e00

2 I I I r I i E I I L I L L I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N11 1 , This study-is the fourth_i:n a series of studies of the accepta- bility of low deli'very cigarettes relative to regular filter cigarettes among nonmenthol smokers. The first test was the Marlboro vs. four cigarettes of less than 10 mg delivery and varyin,g RTD's. R&D and RP3 panelists rated~ all three of the low delivery ciigarettes as acceptable as the Marlboro control (Accession No. 74-054)1. In the second test, ;,,;..received the same cigarettes, with d'ifferent ballots for each delivery Tevels. Three independent groups of paneliists from RP3 and strength ratingis of two cigarettes differing markedily in .one of the experimental models from the first test was chosen to be run against a Marl'borolconitrol. The purpose was to determine in what manner tar delivery information influences acceptability group: (1!) nolinformation....the standard blind comparison ballot; (2) true information...the Marlboro was i'denitified as a commercially available full-flavored cigarette and the experimental cigarette as full-flavored but lower in delivery; and (3), fal'se information:.: : the Marlboro identified as lower in delivery and the experimental . :f as the commercial full-flavored cigarette. Our findings fromithis test (Accessioin No. 75-003) were that when information was supplied to panelists it did affect their acceptability ratiings; the Marliboro beingirated higher in acceptability under the blind test, but not more acceptable when iinformation, either true or false - was supplied. A third test was canceled when an incorrect ballot was i nadvertantly set out wi th the ci garettes . 10003630 45 In the present study we used two POL National panels of across- the-board nonmenthol smokers. Only two presentations were used: (1) the standard' blind'comparison ballot with alphanumeric codes; and (2) the information ballot, where approximate deliveries of each of the cigarettes was given. (18 mg "tar," 1.3 mg nicotine for the Marlboro and 10 mg,"tar,"' 0.7 mg nicotine for the 1ow delivery model.) Panelists were acceQtabi]ity and strength. asked to rate each cigarette on

Page 5: bvp64e00

I I I I I I t I I I- L L L L , M E T H 0-DS -1 g es The Ci' arett = ~ 3 Specifications for the cigarettes were targeted to be the same as those used in RP3'-3512 (D4ANW & D4ANX); a Control Marlboro and an experimental low dellivery cigarette at 10 mg tar, 6" RTD, With no more than 20% air dilution. The critical val'ues of the supplied cigarettes are summarized below: " Marlboro Experimental Tar (mg/cigt.) 14.8 8.9 RTD (in. of H20) 4.7 5.5 Dilution (~) None 23.0 For complete analytTcal data see Appendix A. Pr-O.cedure The test was mailed to two panels of 500 each. These were across-the-board,nonmenithol smokers (both fil'ter and nonfilter) from the POL National Panel. Five hundrediof the panelists (the Blind group) received a stand'ardi°blind" pai'red' complarison ballot, the other five hundred panelists (the Information group) received a ballot identifying, the cigarettes as delivering 18 mg, "tar," 1.3 mg n1cotine (the control') and 10 mig "tar," 0.7 mg nicotine (the experimental). Presentatilon was balanced for both groups; in the i'nfoirmation group half of the panielists were asked to smoke the 18 mg tar cigarette first; the other half smoked the 10 mg tar cigarette first. _ The maiilout was a split carton (,5 packs/5 packs) of the two ciga- rettes. Panelists were asked toismoke one of the cigarettes and rate it oniacceptabilityl and strength2 before smoking the other cigarette. See ballots in Appendix B. 11=dislike extremely to 9=1ike extremely i=extremely weak to 9=extremely strong

Page 6: bvp64e00

F I I I I I I I i E I I I L L L R'E S U L T SI I I 4 Acceptability Ratiings Table 1 in the computer printouts shows the acceptabili,ty rating means and "t" test probabilities for the combined tests and various subgroups by the presentation received. One thing to note in the table is that the 9 mg cigarette.- with few exception!s - had the higiher mean rating of the twoIcigarettes even when they were judlgied equally acceptable. The effect that delivery information has in influencing smokers' evaluations can be seen by the fact that the two ci'garettes were judged equall1y acceptable by the total panel when no information was given and the 9 mg cigarette was judged significantly more acceptablewhen identi fi ed as hiavi ngi l ess `tar" and~ni cotiine than the control Marlboro. The categories of smokers who were most influencedlinn their acceptabiiity ratings by the information were females,' ages 35+; health filter smokers, and those who smoke 30+ cigarettes/ day. The informationidid not have an effect on males, regular ~ filter smokers, and those smoking less than 30 cigarettes/day. C - - ~ GJ The interactions in the acceptabiJity ratings betweenithe two ~ G.: cigarettes, the two presentations and, severaT variables are ~, illustrated in the following graphs. A-i shows the initeraction ~ of presentation by cigarettes among males anId femal'es. The type of cigarettes that the panelists reported smoking are-the variables in graph A-2: ("Type" refers toiregul'ar or health filtered cigarettes.) Graph A-3 shows as variables the different consumption rates - <20 cigarettes/day, 20-29 and 30+. ' -._... s: N ~.~(r..~- .~{~~ . . .4. . . 11

Page 7: bvp64e00

r."'"' I _ f ..r r- r.._* r-mu., r.... 1'"""'u r"~ r'mlo ."r." /+" I" on" ~.~.y Mrry rrrr'1 ~.r'1 wrl . ir ._. SCALE NAMt e ACCEFT IEj I I I TY BOTH PkLSENTATIdNS bL INf; phE SENTAT I5n INFORMAT 1UN PHESENTATI6N MALES, dd'TH PkESErTATItir`S BLINU INFoKMAT ION MALES, AGES 1dw34 dL1NC INVaKMATTbN MALES, AUtS 5L I r~L' INFjKrlATTdN FtMALES, ut+TN PkESENTATI6NS BL I NL INFuKMATTON FE.MALLS, .+GLS 1b-34 E: L I N G INF UHMAT 1EiN FE,01ALtS, AGES 3b+ bLIN[: INFOFiMAT 16N TAdLE 1 RATING SCALE 1=DISLIKE EXTREMELY TO 9RLIKE EXTREMELY) NLiMbER , MEAN SCALE RATINGS , ' MARL 9 MG SE 6~ MEAN PHOg 489 5,43 5.78 .0800 .0Q26 e52 5.56 51,73 .1Q51 .2393 237 5.3Q 5.83 1212 0U26 267 5.51 5.71 *1112 +1b84 140 5.55 5.76 .1500 .3154 127 5.46 565 166p .5918 89 552 5.66 .19Qy .599d 42 5.12 5.48 .3122 .5713 41 5.93 5.85 .2186 +8092 184 5.5Q 5.73 .136ts .226b 98 5973 5,89 168J 5295 86 5.23 5.56 .2221 .3Q33 "c22 5.34 5.86 I 1145 . .042t) 112 5.56 5.69 1447 .5w96 110 5.11 6,C3 1745 .CUC6 72 5.31 5.76 2157 .1336 37 557 i.t 5.7t3 249t3 .5513 35 5103 5.74 .3581 .1642 15C 5.35 ' 59 9C *1345 0q49 75 5.56 : 5.E4 ~ 1 785 7514 75 5.15 6.16 1952 90UG7 SVOMOOOT

Page 8: bvp64e00

ALL HtGULAk FILTEkS 311 b.63 oLlwl. 159 5.77 INVuriMATTdN 152 5.49 85MM kE:uuLAk FILTEfiS c5t) 5.69 5L1hU 135 5.79 INFukilATTUN 121 5.58 ,.j MAFiLHclisd b5MM 120 582 RL I tvL' 66 6.05 I NF`tikMA T 10N 54 5.56 ALL HF.ALTM FILTLRS 143 5004 dLTr~0 73 5.19 INFukMATIt3N 7C 4.ii9 851"M htAL_ fH F ILTERS 140 5.07 ULINU 7L) 5.22 I NF cii1MA 1 1 bN 6$ 4'91 ALL H1HER CIGITS 35 5.20 bL[n,L` 2C 5.2C INFbkMA1TON 15 5.2G <20 CIGrTS/UAY 88 5.34 5L Tr.c 44 5.0G INFtjkMATitiN 44 5.68 2Q"2y L_I Ei IT.'i/vAY 186 5.38 dLTNU 91 5.58 INF'dFiMATTdN 95 5.18. 30+ CIuITS/UAY 215 5-.51 L'LIi~L` 117 5.74 INF'uFii1AT TtiN 9ts 5.23 _ 5.83 1034 .17p2 5.88 .1323 5532 5.78 14GJ 2UQ7 5.8C 111c 5214 5.88 91406 .6354 5.71 .1750 .6Q19 5.72 .1651 .6727 5976 91960 .3U3y 5.69 .2785 .7424 5.74 1409 0Q09 5.52 .2p41 .2574 5.97 .189% r0003 5.74 e1422 ,0U15 5.57' .2066 .2368 5S3 1917 .0GG7 5.43 261p .5467 5.30 .3158 .8197 5.6C .4516 .54%1 6.00 2085 .0263 5.77 315y 087;3 6.E3 I 2754 .1651 5.64 w 1268 .1495 5.64 .161L) .8055 5.E4 v 1942 0512 580 .117b .0757 579 1455 .8:3 13 583 1894 02// STLCY NAML a flAi<LCt3kH VS 5MV C IG I To (HL INU AND INFBRMAT'i6N' PRESSNTATI6NS ) DATE ANALYSIS C:UMFLETEr - MAR ~3,T76 (;Vof:oEOOOi

Page 9: bvp64e00

I I I I I I I I I L L ACCEPTABILITY MEAN RATINGS A-I MALE lFEMALE 9mg MARL. 9 mg FEMALE A-2 TYPE OF CIGARETTE SMOKED 6.0 r BLIND 5.5 INFO 5.0 4.51 MARL. 9 mg INFO MARL. 9 mg REGULAR HEALTH :I i

Page 10: bvp64e00

i I I I I i I I I I- I- I.- L r 6 A-3 NO. OF CIGARETTES SMOKED PER DAY 6.5 r < 20 9 mg MARL. 9 mg MARL. 9 mg 20 -29 30+ The effect of supplying delivery information~ with a cigarette is that a low delivery cigarette becomes more acceptable to a heterogeneous group of smokers, the effect being most pronounced' g among femalle smokers and'smokers who regularly smoke cigarettes. "health" Strength Ratinigs Table 2 in the computer printouts shows the strenigth rating means and "t" test probabilities. Information about the deliivery levels of the two ci'garettes had a very real' effect upon strength ratings. Male panelists andl those smoki'ng 20 or more cigarettes/day judged the cigarettes as being, equal in strength when smoking them in the blind presentation. Femalies, regular and healith smokers, and those consuming less than 20 cigarettes/day detected the strength differences correctly withoult the delivery information.

Tobacco Documents Online

Product Design